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

[CDL.TO]

Politics play a large part in subway construction and I know that Spain has a socialist gov't. Besides the Green Party the most transit friendly major party we have is the NDP. Sure they would spend us into oblivion but we could all take the subway there.

We can try and convince ourselves that Madrid managed so much construction because of a socialist government or because of lower wages or some such thing, but the fact of the matter is it's all bunk. It's a cultural difference, the citizens have DEMANDED subway construction and the political parties have delivered. That and the fact that the people of Spain haven't demanded balanced budgets from their government helps.

I recall a map posted on the internet a few years back. I've tried to find it but I couldn't hunt it down. It showed the subway extensions in Madrid promised by the different parties. Basically, the "right" party promised to extend lines by 2 stops, the "centre" party promised to extend them by 3, and the "left" promised to extend them by 4. But each major party still had major subway system expansion as part of their platform... that's what the voters expected.
`

 

[unimaginative2]

The other difference is that they design the lines from the start for rapid and economical construction.

 

[Anth]

Well can try and convince ourselves that Madrid managed so much construction because of a socialist government or because of lower wages or some such thing, but the fact of the matter is it's all bunk. It's a cultural difference, the citizens have DEMANDED subway construction and the political parties have delivered. That and the fact that the people of Spain haven't demanded balanced budgets from their government either.

Well said. Spain's socialist government has only been in power since 2005 anyhow.

 

[adma]

But, this being Continental Europe, even the right wing is "socialistic" by N American standards.

 

[maestro]

We can try and convince ourselves that Madrid managed so much construction because of a socialist government or because of lower wages or some such thing, but the fact of the matter is it's all bunk. It's a cultural difference, the citizens have DEMANDED subway construction and the political parties have delivered.

Bull. Spain receives an incredible amount of EU transfer payments to bring its infrastructure up to a minimum standard. If it wasn't for those, you wouldn't see one tenth the subway construction in Madrid.

 

[CDL.TO]

Bull. Spain receives an incredible amount of EU transfer payments to bring its infrastructure up to a minimum standard. If it wasn't for those, you wouldn't see one tenth the subway construction in Madrid.

The only citation I could find said that Spain recieved 12 billion euros over the period 2000-2006 (I'd be happy to see some other figures). That's 2 billion a year for the entire country to fund the construction of hundreds and hundreds of miles with TGV lines, expressways, and subways in Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bilbao, Seville, Acalant, and Palma as well as airport expansions (like the massive new terminal in Madrid) and new schools and hospitals. I've searched for a citation, but as far as I can tell the Madrid-Barcelona high speed line alone cost 3 billion euros.

Who said that the transfer payments must be spent on subway construction? Why haven't other the countries that have received EU transfer payments seen so much subway construction?

I'd like to be proven wrong, but I've been in discussions with Spainish citizens on other forums who have stated that effect the EU transfer payments are exaggerated.

 

[Whoaccio]

Spain has/does receive transfer payments. It is difficult to measure exactly, a lot of the EUs infrastructure funding comes under 'integration' programs and such. Looking through the EU's nifty regional projects website, the most applicable program I found was 'Objective Two' scheme for Madrid. There is quite a bit of bureaucratic jargon on the website, so it is quite possible I missed something. To achieve this, the EU contributed about 400m euros over a period of 7 years (January 1st 2000-Dec 31st 2006). To the category of 'Local and Urban Development', which sounded the most likely to include metro construction, the EU contributed 67m euros over that period.

There are more schemes for the current planning period I haven't quite had time to go through yet:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=ES&gv_reg=ALL&gv_PGM=1121&LAN=7&gv_per=2&gv_defL=7
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=ES&gv_reg=ALL&gv_PGM=1120&LAN=7&gv_PER=2&gv_defL=7

(my first impression is that these aren't much bigger in size than what Toronto gets from the Feds.)

EDIT: Okay, there are quite a few programs the EU has funded in Spain since '94.
EDIT: 12b euros sounds about right. Most of it would be specifically targeted at 'objective 1 convergence zones' (eurocrat speak for have not regions of Spain), which specifically doesn't include Madird. Bilbao's metro definitely seems like a candidate though. Bilbao in general for that matter.

 

[GTS]

But, this being Continental Europe, even the right wing is "socialistic" by N American standards.

Agree totally with your description. But N. America is beginning to shift to the left a bit.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

Why are we extending subway lines at $300-350 million per km to suburban low density areas like Vaughan Corporate Centre (which has nothing but big box stores) and Richmond Hill Centre,.... when Toronto is struggling to find funding for LRT at about $40 million per km to service much higher density and much more urban areas within Toronto???? Shouldn't it be the other way around??? This is how the politicians spend OUR TAX MONEY! Doesn't Eglinton deserve a subway line way more than Vaughan Costco Centre and Richmond Hill Centre?

If you still have more questions than answers, you might want to check this out:


Yonge Subway Extension

The City and TTC are partners with The Regional Municipality of York on a study of the Yonge subway extension from Finch Station to Richmond Hill Centre (at Yonge Street and Highway 7).

Conceptual and Functional Planning studies have provided an evaluation of alignment alternatives, station locations and associated facilities in consultation with public and government stakeholders to develop a technically feasible solution, including preliminary construction methods. The project will also include planned improvements to address current service levels and existing capacity.

The project is now in the final phases of the Transit Project Assessment Process (TPAP). The Notice of Commencement was issued on October 3, 2008. City Council will consider a report on the project at its meeting on January 27/28, 2009.

Upcoming Public Consultation Meeting:

Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Open House: 5:00 - 7:00 pm
Presentation: 7:00 - 8:30 pm

Multi-Purpose Room
North Toronto Memorial Community Centre*
200 Eglinton Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1A7

http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/yongesubway/index.htm

 

[Disparishun]

Why are we extending subway lines at $300-350 million per km to suburban low density areas like Vaughan Corporate Centre (which has nothing but big box stores) and Richmond Hill Centre,.... when Toronto is struggling to find funding for LRT at about $40 million per km to service much higher density and much more urban areas within Toronto????

First, I am very dubious that the Yonge extension will ever be built. If it is, though, the density at Richmond Hill Centre -- and at the intermediate stops on the way to Richmond Hill Centre -- will, at that time, be higher than it is along Eglinton.

Second, the Yonge extension extends an existing line: no transfer. On Eglinton, no line exists, and they are building from scratch: no transfer. A no-transfer route actually makes sense.

That said, I think you are right. Eglinton should also be a subway. Eventually, it will have to be a subway. Might as well get it right the first time around.

This is how the politicians spend OUR TAX MONEY! Doesn't Eglinton deserve a subway line way more than Vaughan Costco Centre and Richmond Hill Centre?

Yes. Ontario tax money is certainly Ontarians' tax money. But the Ontario government is responsible for -- among other locations -- all of urban Toronto. Not just the 2.5 million people of the City of Toronto.

I am curious. Have you ever been north of Finch? In particular, have you been on the stretch of Yonge for which the Yonge extension planned, during rush hour?

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

First, I am very dubious that the Yonge extension will ever be built. If it is, though, the density at Richmond Hill Centre -- and at the intermediate stops on the way to Richmond Hill Centre -- will, at that time, be higher than it is along Eglinton.


I am curious. Have you ever been north of Finch? In particular, have you been on the stretch of Yonge for which the Yonge extension planned, during rush hour?

Yes, I have. I actually live in the Yonge-Sheppard-401 area so I'm quite familiar with Yonge north of Finch. And I'm familiar with all the rows of buses York Region sends down Yonge to dump passengers at Finch onto the Yonge subway line.

Yonge subway line is already at 100% capacity. Instead of always dumping their passengers at Finch why don't York Region dump them at Downsview on the Spadina line, which is 80% capacity. Downsview has a huge subway station the size of an airport terminal and a large under-utilized bus terminal too!

If you look at their ridership projection for stations north of Steeles,... they're all low ridership like Rosedale. It's Richmond Hill Centre that will be huge ridership numbers,... and that's not due to walk in,.. it's all the buses they plan to send there. 28 bay bus terminal up there,... and another 26 -28 bay bus terminal at Steeles. That's a lot of bus full of people they'll be dumping onto the Yonge subway line! It's basically 4 times the number of buses that currently travel along Yonge between Steeles and Finch now.

 

[p5connex]

Okay, okay, so my numbers might be off, but I never claimed they were completely accurate, I was only suggesting from conversations I have had in the past with friends/colleagues from Toronto and abroad that our per km rate for metro construction seems exorbitantly high.

Nonetheless, I am obviously way out of my league with regards to debating this topic- far too many of you seem to know more about how the numbers/costs/inflation etc. stack up for the TTC and other metros than I either care or am able to figure out. That said, I think we are too timid to actually do anything, so we put big numbers in front of things to deter the public and ultimately sway public opinion away from mega-infrastructure projects. In all honesty, chances are if we truly want an expanded subway system it will have to be funded by private enterprise.

Furthermore, as Whoaccio puts it:

If we ever do get around to building a new subway line, we should probably start to use narrower trainsets so that we can build single tunnel underground segments.

Good point. Our subways must be the widest in the world..is that really necessary and do we really need to carry on this trend for the sake of having wide trains? Like many other cities, that have adapted to changing trends and modernized their fleets to suit newer and more efficient construction processes, ie: Barcelona, Berlin, Vienna...and many other cities, why couldn't Toronto do the same when it comes to new lines?

p5

 

[drum118]

Let's see!!!!

How many buses service Finch Now??

YRT will remove 2 routes off Yonge and that is the 97 and the 77. 97 is replace by Blue. 77 goes to RHC if it exist then.

Since there will be a saving of 15 minutes of travel time, both TTC and YRT can remove 1 or more buses off their route and still offer the same headway depending on current headway's.

ie! if route runtime (Round trip including layover) is 60 minutes and headway is every 10 minutes, you need 6 buses for example. If you reduce the runtime to 45 minutes, you need 4.5 buses and therefore you could drop the headway to 9 minutes using 5 buses and save one bus. If you increase the headway to 12 minutes, you only need 4 buses and save 2 buses. There is no saving if you give the extra time for driver layover.

Now, what is the ridership level between the 2 different headway to support either level of service? 50 riders for peak load and 35 for off peak at the highest point along the route. If you leave Steeles with 50 and pickup more riders before dropping riders, then your peak load is X point on the route and that will determine the number of buses require. X buses will then indicate what the headway will look like, but must look at the Runtime to/from end as well 3-5 minute layover for drivers.

I believe that headway's over 10 minutes must be divide equal using the face clock. This way, a rider knows when the next bus should arrived if they just miss it. Having a bus come every 11.25 minute becomes a guessing game. How many ppl know what .25 of minute is as well do the drivers use this when operating the bus?

Now, if this happens on all routes, you may get the numbers of buses require to service today per hour that will tell you how many bays you will need, but 10-20 years down the line becomes a somewhat guessing game. Past performance on increase of ridership helps, but it will only take a development project or 2 not thought of today to throw the numbers off.

If we look at a Don Mills to the City Core to see what kind of impact on Steeles will have, we will see a drop in ridership at Steeles and a lost of a bay or two.

If we have GO servicing all the 416 station operating every 10-15 minutes all day using the same fare structure as TTC, well see another 1-2 bay less.

If we add more station to the GO line using TTC fare, we will see a lost of 3 platforms min. Is the time different between traveling over to Yonge to go South equal to the extra time waiting for a GO train worth it to a rider east of Yonge, assuming they are going to the core?

A lot assumption to say what the real number should be.

It's better over built the station from day one than try to figure how to expanded it 20 years down the road. One only have to look at Kipling to see this problem today where there is not enough room for bus bays, but layover. This is before MT gets kick over there in the next 2 years.

Is it worth the fight to fight over 2 or 4 bays just to save a few 100,ooo's ????

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Is it worth the fight to fight over 2 or 4 bays just to save a few 100,ooo's ????

Uh, yeah, it is. It's more like a fight over 12 bays, costing tens of millions of dollars. If Steeles gets any kind of line like Metrolinx says is possible in the foreseeable future, we're talking about like 15+ bays. Fare/system integration would mean fighting over about 20 bays and over $100 million dollars. Steeles is not even a terminus station like Kipling is.

 

[Disparishun]

Yonge subway line is already at 100% capacity. Instead of always dumping their passengers at Finch why don't York Region dump them at Downsview on the Spadina line, which is 80% capacity.

I don't understand your question. You are asking why buses coming down Yonge Street don't reroute and go way out of their way in order to load-balance subway station traffic? And why YRT buses, as opposed to TTC buses, don't adopt this foolish approach in particular?

Presumably, neither YRT or TTC buses drive kilometres out of their way to dump bus riders at distant stations because it would be inefficient, a waste of time, environmentally silly, and make little sense. They seem to think that the goal of a public transit system is to get people where they're going.

If you look at their ridership projection for stations north of Steeles,... they're all low ridership like Rosedale.

Here (pdf) are the subway daily total boardings. Page 12 of this document tries to create similar estimate for the Yonge extension:
- Richmond Hill Centre - Finch (existing)
- Steeles - Don Mills, Greenwood, Davisville, Main, Sherbourne
- Langstaff/Longbridge - High Park, Woodbine, Dupont, Christie
- Royal Orchard, Clark, Cummer/Drewry - Castle Frank, Chester

It's Richmond Hill Centre that will be huge ridership numbers,... and that's not due to walk in,.. it's all the buses they plan to send there. 28 bay bus terminal up there,... and another 26 -28 bay bus terminal at Steeles. That's a lot of bus full of people they'll be dumping onto the Yonge subway line! It's basically 4 times the number of buses that currently travel along Yonge between Steeles and Finch now.

Again, I don't understand. It sounds as if you are estimating the number of passengers "dumped" at the subway station -- this is not happy phrasing, I think -- based on the total number of bus bays pencilled in; assuming that most of these bus-bay-enabled passengers do not now take the subway, but would begin to do so; and concluding that this many new riders would be a calamity best avoided by having them stay in their cars.

I'm pretty sure I've misunderstood, so do tell. As to the bus bays, though, I am dubious.