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

Sure the province can build the subway to Richmond Hill, but the TTC doesn't have to operate it past Steeles

The way government works in Ontario (and everywhere else in Canada), the TTC has to do anything and everything that the province tells it to do. Municipalities have no power of their own - they only exist because the provinces let them exist, and they only get power when the provinces grant them power.

What's most likely to happen IMO is an agreement where both subway lines get built together. The provincial government wants a Yonge subway extension to Highway 7 and the city wants a Don Mills/Pape/Queen subway. The province wants both projects to be built, but they won't let that get in the way of their bargaining with the city.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMO
There is a human cost to this cynicism.

Eventually, someone is going to be pushed off the Bloor platform at rush hour. (Or perhaps at Eglinton after the Crosstown opens, the platforms on Eglinton are even narrower.)

That's not impossible but it's certainly an extreme example.
I could equally say that if Tory's transit logic persists in Toronto much longer, and if we fail to facilitate suburban intensification it's only a matter of time until Toronto collapses under its own success and we'll end up like Detroit within 50 years. There's all kinda of hypothetical disasters.

Its much more accurate to say Neoliberals rather than Liberals. I'm just sayin

At a macro level, sure.


We started planning for the Relief Line more than three years ago and are now very close to completing planning for the line. Metrolinx, TTC and the City of Toronto all independently studied solutions, ranging from busses to subway to RER, and they've all come up with the same solution. The technology for the line was determined long ago. Nobody, whether it be at the political or bureaucratic level, is considering an RER solution for the Relief Line.

How quickly we forget: the reason Tory proposed SmartTrack (in addition to, sure, undercutting Ford with a "surface subway") was to eliminate the need for the DRL. That's PRECISELY what he argued SmartTrack did. Obviously it was a lie - or wishful thinking, if you want to be generous - but it's just one more on the pile. And I say that as someone who supported Tory's dithering up to and including the "network" compromise of a few months ago. And it's a not too distant reminder that, yup, someone was PRECISELY considering an RER solution for the relief line. And that someone is now the Mayor.

He got his joke of a pet project "funded" and then said, "Oh, and we still need the DRL. That's our top priority (if you ask our planning staff). But first I'm going to waste every cent we have on a subway we don't necessarily need and no matter how much costs rise and ridership projections drop, I will continue to insist it's the best possible move."

The DRL has been on and off the planning table for decades. I think it's insane that it hasn't been built and it would be even more insane to deny the need for it. But after watching the last few years I don't believe that the completion of planning will lead to anything. The funding's been gobbled up by SSE and SmartTrack (such as it is) and even the Gardiner Hybrid. A proper "new deal" would give Toronto and other munis ongoing capital funding but I've finally given up on the notion Toronto might spend it correctly even if it materialized.

So, yeah, we do need the DRL. And in a perfect world Toronto would built it now or 10 years ago or even 30. But their continuous messing things up is having ripple effects.
 
The way government works in Ontario (and everywhere else in Canada), the TTC has to do anything and everything that the province tells it to do. Municipalities have no power of their own - they only exist because the provinces let them exist, and they only get power when the provinces grant them power.

What's most likely to happen IMO is an agreement where both subway lines get built together. The provincial government wants a Yonge subway extension to Highway 7 and the city wants a Don Mills/Pape/Queen subway. The province wants both projects to be built, but they won't let that get in the way of their bargaining with the city.

Yep not just Ontario but all of Canada. Montreal in all its imperfections knows how to use its political weight against the province. Sure, Quebec City could have "made" the STM cave to its will but the liberals would have lost lots of Montreal ridings...so it was the government who caved.

It just shows how impotent our city hall is in regards of its relationship with the province, and Queen's Park knows that all too well
 
Nobody, whether it be at the political or bureaucratic level, is considering an RER solution for the Relief Line.
lol...perhaps they should? London planned a number more 'tubes' until realizing it was becoming incredibly expensive. The Jubilee Line cost more per distance than the Channel Tunnel. London is now avowed to only do a few tweaks (like the Northern Line into Battersea) and no new subways. They are pushing ahead on Crossrail 2. Real trains. For real people.

Sorry to upset your very Toronto thinking. Oh...and who exactly is going to finance the DRL as projected? Just a small little point that's going to sink the SSE.

Edit to Add: New York will not build another subway, neither will London or Paris. Why is Toronto so stuck on yesterday's solutions?

And to be very clear, SmartTrack *IS NOT* RER! It was a harebrained piggyback concept that would do more harm than good. The answer is *real* RER into and across Toronto to relieve the subway, to relieve Union Station, and make journeys across Toronto far faster.
For London, one Crossrail isn’t enough
Yonah Freemark
time-gray.gif
July 30th, 2014 |
comments-gray.gif
26 Comments

As Paris begins construction on a massive new program of circumferential metro lines designed to serve inter-suburban travel, London has doubled down on its efforts to improve links within the center of the metropolitan area. The two approaches speak to the two regions’ perceived deficiencies: Paris with its inadequate transit system in the suburbs, London with a core that is difficult to traverse.

There’s one thing both cities deem essential, though: Much faster transit links to reduce travel times around each respective region. In London, that means growing support for additional new tunneled rail links designed to bring suburban commuters through the center city while speeding urban travelers.

Since the conclusion of the second World War, London’s Underground network has grown very slowly: The Victoria Line was added in 1968 and the Jubilee Line extended in 1979, but that’s about it. In some ways, that made sense: London region’s population peaked in 1951 at 8.1 million and declined precipitously until the 1980s. It only recouped it losses in 2011. But the region is now growing quickly, adding an estimated 100,000 or more people a year, reaching a projected 9.7 million 20 years from now. The number of commuters entering the city is expected to grow by 36% by 2031.

That growth has put incredible strain on the city’s transit network, with ridership growing by 40% in fifteen years. Through direct government grants, the support of the pseudo-public Network Rail, and the commitment of Transport for London, the local transit organizing body, the city has two major relief valves under construction. The Thameslink Programme, which will open for service in 2018, will improve the existing north-south rail link through the city by allowing for trains every two to three minutes; the Crossrail 1 project, also opening in 2018, will create a new, 21-km northwest-to-southeast subway corridor that is expected to increase overall transit capacity by 10% while significantly reducing east-west travel across the city center.

Those projects, which cost more than £21 billion ($36 billion) between them, will allow the system to accommodate new growth, but they won’t resolve London’s most significant transit bottleneck, the Victoria Line, which carries far more riders per mile than any other Underground Line. That’s where Crossrail 2 comes in.

Crossrail 2, as the following map shows, would extend from the southwest to the northeast of the city, connecting Victoria with Euston, St. Pancras, and King’s Cross Stations, roughly paralleling the alignment of the Victoria Line. The project will allow certain trains on the West Anglia Main Line to the north and the South Western Main Line to run through the city. The project was submitted to a public consultation process that ended last week that examined several options for line routings; a preferred route is expected to be selected this year, with construction beginning at the earliest in 2020 at a cost of £12 to 20 billion ($21 to 34 billion). Last year, a separate consultation for the route selected a “regional” option (allowing through-running commuter trains) over a “metro” option, which would have been an automated subway.

Like Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2 is expected to increase the transit capacity of central London by 10%, possible thanks to 10-car trains running every two minutes, allowing 45,000 passengers per hour per direction. As the following map illustrates, that capacity increase will be needed by the early 2030s if the project is not implemented. Major sections of the Victoria, Piccadilly, Northern, and District Lines are all expected to be crowded at more than four passengers per square meter at rush hour, enough to make much of London Underground a truly inhospitable environment.
[...continues at length with charts, maps and reader comments by transport experts, a few of the names that have been in Toronto's press lately on the futility and waste of SSE...]
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2014/07/30/for-london-one-crossrail-isnt-enough/

I'll even harden my point on yet another subway north of Toronto: Why? There are far better ways of doing this. If you dig or bore a tunnel, make it something worthwhile to ride distance on, like TfL full sized trains, like RER Paris, Oz cities, many other cities, LIRR/Metro/North, etc, etc.

Toronto thinks so incredibly small, and then argues about it, all the while not having any budget to do it with. It's absurd! And Queen's Park isn't much better, also betrothed to political meddling. How incredibly Mickey Mouse on a Popsicle stick.

Toronto needs a *full bore* in-tunnel heavy rail RER running under the core and through onto suburban and regional rails, no transfer, save for connecting transit in the core. The last thing you need is a station every major block. Toronto is well-served surface wise with the density of the TTC. The TTC's major problem is overloaded subways.

Edit to Add: Here's reference to my claim as to how subways always spiral to multiples of the initially claimed cost:
The UK Guardian,
By Keith Harper, Transport Editor
Tuesday 16 February 1999 02.24 GMT

The cost of the Jubilee line Underground extension from central London to the Millennium site at Greenwich has soared by a further £300 million, to £3.3 billion, officials at the Treasury confirmed last night, making it one of the world's most expensive transport projects.

The new figure means that each mile of the 10-mile section of line is costing £330 million - the same as for each mile of the £10 billion Channel Tunnel.

In comparison, the French have just constructed their new line 14 on the Paris Metro for less than half the price: £120 million a mile. Treasury officials say they are furious with London Underground for allowing the project's costs to spiral so sharply, and have told senior managers that they will get no extra money for the line, and that the cost will have to be borne by London Underground. [...]
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/feb/16/keithharper

Since that article, it went beyond the cost of the Channel Tunnel. Crossrail, meantime, came in on budget, and early! And that includes passenger screens on station platforms and a superlative environment.

It's time to look to new models, and the Infrastructure Bank, by it's very framework and design, will demand that.

Many more cities itemized and described in detail doing heavy-rail through running:
» For commuter rail, through-running is becoming increasingly popular in city after city looking to take advantage of faster travel times, direct suburb-to-suburb services, and more downtown stops. Leipzig, Germany, whose City Tunnel opened in 2013, is a case in point.
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...wn-often-isnt-the-right-place-for-a-terminus/
 
Last edited:
I'll even harden my point on yet another subway north of Toronto: Why?

Without it there's a huge gap in the province's transit plans. The 407 Transitway, Highway 7 BRT, Centre/Clark BRT, Yonge North BRT and Steeles BRT can't exist on their own. They need a subway line to send/receive passengers.

The Jubilee Line cost more per distance than the Channel Tunnel.

That's a stupid comparison. The tunneled part of Crossrail also cost more per distance than the Channel Tunnel. Any transit tunnel in downtown Toronto is going to cost significantly more than the Channel Tunnel's $500M/km (in 2016 dollars). Hell, the Eglinton LRT is close to that price figure - at the $100M/km cost for surface LRT (using Finch West's figure), the tunnelled portion of Eglinton comes in at $400M/km in construction costs. Those projects are all obscenely expensive, right?
 
The only reason for picking RER over a subway is it might be cheaper. But given that any RER tunnel through the downtown core would be both wide and deep, I don't expect that cost savings would be as much as some would hope.

RER has several service quality disadvantages compared to the subway. When looking at headways and travel speeds, RER would be significantly slower than a subway solution. If you read the Yonge demand modelling, you can see how travel time differences of even a few minutes have significant impact on the potential for Yonge Line relief.

RER station locations would be terrible for accessibility and intensification. In the long term, we'll see less transit oriented development around an RER station than a subway station. RER would also have fewer stations than a subway solution.

If money is tight, the Relief Line can be extended on the surface to eliminate a lot of the disadvantages of RER, while keeping the advantages of subways.
 
Numerous RER solutions were considered and eliminated by Metrolinx.
What was the basis for rejecting RER? It certainly works in Paris. Sydney too - Sydney Trains seems to run a really effective and huge RER-type system - catenary wires, tunnelled in parts and overground in others, 3-minute service at peak ranging to 10-minute off-peak service, a lot of lines converging in the core...they even manage tap on tap off, time-variable pricing and super clean public toilets at most stations. Of course, their local councils have nothing to do with transit planning and operation, so they eliminate a level of insanity.
 
It's probably worth noting that RER was only rejected for the DRL, not for the whole region. RER is still being built on several GO lines and will fill some gaping holes in the transit system. It will complement the DRL, not replace it.

And we can't because Toronto has shown itself utterly incapable of prioritizing projects, sticking to a plan or choosing what to build with limited resources.

I've stated my position several times but:
-I would like to see both projects proceed at the same time. Yonge should go first because it's closer to shovel ready and all the planning is in place and it won't overwhelm the system on opening day. I wouldn't approve it without the DRL following close behind, but I also wouldn't wait for the DRL, especially given Toronto's record of dithering.

I also have no problem with the notion YR taxpayers should contribute to operating costs, whether it's through fare integration or a levy or whatever.

That said, Toronto City Council has made so many legitimately embarrassing transit decisions in the past 6-7 years and wasted so many billions and so many years that I've built up enough cynicism that I don't really care what priorities are in their politicians' imagination.

While I understand and do not dismiss the legitimate capacity concerns, I really don't think Toronto has earned the right to have a say on any of this stuff anymore and am not remotely impressed or intimidated by the mayor's grandstanding on his transit high horse. He's spent all his transit political capital and lost me these last few months entirely - especially with his prevarications over the past few weeks - and his opinion on what "makes sense" in terms of the region's infrastructure means nothing to me. He has no clue. Call me when the ELRT opens.

So, if the planning is going to be "political" either way, I have no real problem with the province "overruling" the dolts at Toronto City Council - who are so low as to vote against doing a business case or comparative study for a line they're determined to build for entirely political reasons - and benefiting the politicians in York Region who have devised and stuck to a comprehensive plan and implemented the planning to facilitate growth.

Beyond that, not much news today: Toronto still opposed. Province still hemming and hawing and leaving the door just a teeny bit open, just in case.
Hence the need for a proper region-wide transit authority to take care of this stuff. Our current patchwork of squabbling feifdoms and shortsighted political decisions has done nothing but screw up transportation in the GTA for decades. When so many other cities get governance right, it's amazing how we continue to get it so wrong.
 
What was the basis for rejecting RER? It certainly works in Paris. Sydney too - Sydney Trains seems to run a really effective and huge RER-type system - catenary wires, tunnelled in parts and overground in others, 3-minute service at peak ranging to 10-minute off-peak service, a lot of lines converging in the core...they even manage tap on tap off, time-variable pricing and super clean public toilets at most stations. Of course, their local councils have nothing to do with transit planning and operation, so they eliminate a level of insanity.
Indeed. So many Canadians just can't see past the suburban garden fence:

This is an American publication looking for lessons to learn:
For example, Paris’ RER line A, a through-running regional rail service, carries about as many people daily (more than one million riders) on just two tracks as all services operated by commuter rail services in New York City, including Long Island Rail Road, Metro-North, and New Jersey Transit, which require dozens of platforms at the two Manhattan terminals, Grand Central and Penn Station, and which require acres of train storage areas near downtown, either under Grand Central or at the huge yards on Manhattan’s West Side or Sunnyside. In Paris, trains stop at six central-city subway stops, distributing ridership, and train storage is on the suburban fringe.
[...]
Many other cities have invested similarly

Leipzig’s investment in its new urban rail tunnel has brought new vitality to its center city but it is in some ways late to the game. In fact, many of its European peers have built similar center-city rail lines over the past few decades in order to provide through-running rail service stopping at many downtown destinations.

Berlin opened its Stadtbahn in the 1880s, providing intercity and commuter service on an elevated line running east-west through the center of the city. Even today, long-distance German high-speed trains hail at several of its stops as they travel from or through Berlin. In the 1930s, Berlin complemented this service with an S-Bahn subway running north-south through the center.

Other cities followed this trend of providing tunneled service for commuter and intercity rail through their centers. Brussels connected its north and south stations in 1952; in 1967, Madrid linked its major stations with the “Tunnel of Laughter;” in 1969, Paris inaugurated its RER regional rail network with a tunnel straight through the center of the city; Munich provided an S-Bahn connection in 1972; Zurich linked up its S-Bahn trains in 1990; Basel built its network in 1997; Bilbao followed in 1999; and Milan began providing inter-suburban train service through downtown in 2004.

That’s hardly an exhaustive list, and many other cities are planning even more: Brussels is building another tunnel to create its own RER network by 2025; Berlin, Geneva, Munich, Stuttgart, and Zurich are all planning or building additional cross-city regional rail links; and London has a new regional rail line under construction and another planned.

Even South American cities are getting into the mix. In Buenos Aires, the new RER network, which includes a cross-city tunneled link (shown in the following video, in Spanish, but worth the watch even if you don’t understand the language) is expected to double suburban rail ridership. [...]
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...wn-often-isnt-the-right-place-for-a-terminus/
 
RER has several service quality disadvantages compared to the subway. When looking at headways and travel speeds, RER would be significantly slower than a subway solution.
Quite the contrary. It's all itemized in the links I provided, and analyzed to the hilt in many excellent papers and references on-line. On average, compared like for like, RER in tunnel is twice as fast as subway. Which oddly enough, is why very few cities are building subways. They're building through-service RER.
 
lol...perhaps they should? London planned a number more 'tubes' until realizing it was becoming incredibly expensive. The Jubilee Line cost more per distance than the Channel Tunnel. London is now avowed to only do a few tweaks (like the Northern Line into Battersea) and no new subways. They are pushing ahead on Crossrail 2. Real trains. For real people.

London's DLR has continually been expanded over the last few decades, with some extensions still very much on the books. Not to mention that similar systems are at least mildly on the semi-official radar for elsewhere in the Greater London area. Although it's under diff mgmt than the rest of the Tube, and obviously uses different trains and whatnot, considering its characteristics it should definitely be included in their overall subway/metro trackage. Like Line 3 here it was unfortunately built undersized (something that will be rectified), but I think that shows the success of the system. Either way it's not a tram/"LRT" and IMO should serve as a model of modern-day affordable subway expansion.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-4-3_23-14-3.png
    upload_2017-4-3_23-14-3.png
    122.8 KB · Views: 276
London's DLR has continually been expanded over the last few decades, with some extensions still very much on the books. Not to mention that similar systems are at least mildly on the semi-official radar for elsewhere in the Greater London area. Although it's under diff mgmt than the rest of the Tube, and obviously uses different trains and whatnot, considering its characteristics it should definitely be included in their overall subway/metro trackage. Like Line 3 here it was unfortunately built undersized (something that will be rectified), but I think that shows the success of the system. Either way it's not a tram/"LRT" and IMO should serve as a model of modern-day affordable subway expansion.
DLR was built *in lieu* of London Underground, an entity that no longer exists per-se. It is driverless and short distance, I've travelled on it many times. What do you suggest, commuting from Vaughan on one?
 

Back
Top