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

[44 North]

"Stupid" You have a habit of hurling superlatives, and not apologizing when being proven wrong.

That's pretty much the MO I've gotten. Call people stupid, liars, racist, that they've 'never had a job', etc. But when called out on her BS she doesn't say anything.

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?

I guess one would have to define "lieu" in this instance. No question it was in lieu of a standard extension of the underground/deep tube, but what was built was the closest thing possible. In other words not a surface transit upgrade, nor a commuter rail upgrade; but a fully grade-separated high-frequency high-capacity rapid line offering optimal local/medium-haul service in an urban environ. AKA a subway/metro line. The majority wouldn't opt to travel from places as far as Vaughan on such a service, but for local/med distance (i.e what subways are for) I think it's a fairly good compromise. This is why I support keeping/upgrading Line 3 and hoping we study similar options elsewhere.

 

[steveintoronto]

I guess one would have to define "lieu" in this instance. No question it was in lieu of a standard extension of the underground/deep tube, but what was built was the closest thing possible.

It was an arm's length exercise as back when it was implemented, the business case for the Docklands was privately underwritten. I won't go into details, part if it frankly, was union busting, albeit that didn't work:
London DLR staff to stage 48-hour strike
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-stage-48-hour-strike-docklands-light-railway

The DLR initially didn't work that well. Vancouver's Skytrain was the successful model to copy due to the Thales signalling system. For the distances in Toronto, it just wouldn't do it. Even GO trains are far too slow by modern standards. With RER and state of the art signalling, CBTC hopefully we can reach world class standards. How can the French, Asians, South Americans and Europeans do it and we can't?

Numerous RER solutions were considered and eliminated by Metrolinx.

Yesterday's studies for yesterday's answers.

Let's take this back to where this most recent string loop began: (and in all fairness, this is the Yonge Extension string, but these are Siamese similes)

Mayor says Ontario must step up if Toronto is to get downtown relief line
John Tory says the province should match federal funds announced in last week's budget

At a news conference on a busy subway platform, Tory called on the province to match any money for transit expansion provided by the federal government, in the hopes that each can carry about 40 per cent of the project, leaving a 20 per cent share for the city to cover.

• Toronto's downtown relief line now has a 'preferred' route

"The federal government, in its budget of last week, has pledged billions of dollars" for Ontario transit, Tory said.

Now, "the future of transit expansion in Toronto rests squarely on the province of Ontario."

The relief line is still early in its planning stages, with no confirmed route, but a favourite design proposed over the summer has the underground train running south from Pape station, along Pape Avenue, and then turning west at Eastern Avenue, before connecting with Queen and Osgoode stations.

Its price tag is estimated at about $6.8 billion dollars, with at least a decade to go before the project could possibly become a reality, Tory said.
[...]
Ontario Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca, however, told reporters that the provincial government has invested more in transit than "any government in Ontario history."

Citing projects such as the one-stop Scarborough subway extension and the UP Express, Del Duca said that the list of Toronto projects invested in by the province is "literally endless. And the mayor knows that."

He also argued that the province's move to double the provincial gas tax over the next four years will provide Toronto with more revenue than it would have made from the highway toll plan.
[...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/downtown-relief-line-province-1.4053082

Most of us can fill in the rest. But two points: The DRL *is not* 'ready to go' by any means! It's still wishful thinking. It's fantasy with one foot on the dock.

All well and good (to a number of posters) to cite the Metrolinx study, it's Il Duce himself nixing the funding *no matter what it is*!

Toronto is nothing more than a fantasy looking for funding. The list is freakin' endless! Where is the financing coming from? I lost it back at Rail Deck Park, even biting my lip on DumbTrack. There is no money!

So what can be done? Well...how about the Infrastructure Bank? Let them look at the *Big Picture* and stone many birds with one kill, multiply the Fed funds with private (working ratio is considered to be approx 4:1 private to government, depending on business model and case) and let a *business case* determine the best way to do this?

The Feds are actually about to jolt this nation into the future, even further ahead than Oz, who are well ahead of us already in terms of through city rail:

Malcolm Turnbull says ‘innovative’ new unit will ‘broker investment in landmark projects’ – part of his vision for 30-minute commutes for all workers

Malcolm Turnbull is promising an investment-banking style “innovative financing unit” to devise funding deals for multibillion-dollar transport projects as part of a grand plan to reduce commuting time and make Australian cities more liveable.

The financing unit would include bureaucrats and secondees from the private sector and would have the job of finding ways to pay for priority projects identified by Infrastructure Australia. They could include public/private partnerships, government borrowings or “value capture” – using some of the land value increases fuelled by a new project, like a rail line, to pay for its construction.

The government will pledge $50m for feasibility studies into these kinds of deals for prospective projects, which could include the Melbourne Metro, the rail link to the new airport at Badgery’s Creek in Sydney, the Adelaide light rail, the Brisbane cross-river rail and the next stage of the Gold Coast light rail.

Turnbull – who identified cities and major public transport projects as priorities soon after becoming prime minister last year – will use a speech in Melbourne to flesh out his approach.

He will say his government will treat infrastructure funding as an investment wherever possible.

“The Australian government has traditionally provided grants for infrastructure,” he will say, according to his speech notes. “This approach adds to our deficit and reduces incentives for state, territory and local governments to innovate in infrastructure funding and delivery, and partner with the private sector. [...]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...banking-style-unit-to-fund-transport-projects

So if someone can itemize and reference just who is going to fund the DRL and/or the Yonge Extension, please inform me. And John Tory.

Meantime I'll be putting my faith in the Cdn Infrastructure/Investment Bank. And cold headed, non-politically moved, investors who know what will work and what won't, how much it's going to cost, and how to recover that cost with a profit, a profit shared with the investment taxpayers also put in.

Oddly, that's exactly what Cdn Pension and Investment Funds are doing overseas right now, massive investments going to...wait for it...Australia for instance, and funding commuter rail projects there. Struth...

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What was the basis for rejecting RER?

Because of various factors, including speed, headways and limited number of stops, it would not have provided adequate relief for the Yonge Line. It's performance paled in comparison to the other shortlisted options.

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.

I don't know the history of the Sydney and Paris systems, or their justifications for building their RER network, so I'm not going to comment directly on them. But with regards to the Relief Line, you need to keep in mind that it's main objective is to provide relief to the Yonge Line. If we were only looking at building an express transit line from the northeast of the city to Downtown, perhaps RER would be appropriate. RER is not suited for our goals of Yonge Line crowding relief.

 

[steveintoronto]

Because of various factors, including speed, headways and limited number of stops, it would not have provided adequate relief for the Yonge Line. It's performance paled in comparison to the other shortlisted options.

RER in tunnel in lieu of subway through core wasn't even mentioned, let alone considered.

How Toronto...

But with regards to the Relief Line, you need to keep in mind that it's main objective is to provide relief to the Yonge Line.

That's *exactly* why Paris RER, London Crossrail and others made their business case.

I produced the figures and reference.
Here's one example:

» 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/

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Numerous RER solutions were considered and eliminated by Metrolinx.

Yesterday's studies for yesterday's answers.

Has our transit network fundamentally changed since Summer 2015?

Most of us can fill in the rest. But two points: The DRL *is not* 'ready to go' by any means! It's still wishful thinking. It's fantasy with one foot on the dock.

The EA for this thing will be complete in the upcoming months. That's as "ready to go" as any transit project is going to be without construction funds committed, and exactly the same stage YRNS is at currently.

So what can be done? Well...how about the Infrastructure Bank? Let them look at the *Big Picture* and stone many birds with one kill, multiply the Fed funds with private (working ratio is considered to be approx 4:1 private to government, depending on business model and case) and let a *business case* determine the best way to do this?

Why would an infrastructure bank invest in expensive RER upgrades that aren't expected to come close to meeting their objective of providing relief to the Yonge Line?

 

[steveintoronto]

Why would an infrastructure bank invest in expensive RER upgrades that aren't expected to come close to meeting their objective of providing relief to the Yonge Line?

Because they have a vision to look at something that Metrolinx and Toronto City Council haven't.

Where is there even a study on RER in tunnel in lieu of subway in tunnel for DRL? That's the point, Toronto can't think past the last generation. And while I'm on the subject, where is electrification in the GTHA? It's a nice theory that GO keep promising. Toronto was further ahead a *century ago*! (The interurbans running to Guelph, Lake Simco and elsewhere)

There are no funds for DRL, limited funds for the Yonge Extension, limited funds for SSE, only $660,000 from the Feds committed...isn't it about time to use what funds we have, let alone what we haven't, to do something differently?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Metrolinx looked at various RER options, including an RER tunnel in the downtown core, while TTC was completing the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study. The Queen Street RER tunnel was filtered from consideration: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...and Related Planning Studies - FINAL (DS).pdf

 

[amnesiajune]

Metrolinx looked at various RER options, including an RER tunnel in the downtown core, while TTC was completing the Downtown Rapid Transit Expansion Study. The Queen Street RER tunnel was filtered from consideration

The obvious catch with all those studies: What's the fare? The DRL's ridership figures would also be garbage if people had to pay an extra $5.00 to use it. As long as they're operating under a separate fare system, Go Transit will never be anything more than a shuttle between the suburbs and the financial district.

 

[crs1026]

Paris had a basic form of RER for decades before it got to the big ticket investment in things like deep tunnelling. It strikes me that Toronto is still in that decades-away place before we talk about things like an RER tunnel. Lets get 30 minute 2WAD diesel trains on all the GO routes and see how that works before we go that deep into our capital pool. Electrification and fancier train control for high frequencies can hold off, and the money shifted to the Relief Line.

@WislaHD's point about potential fatalities should not be dismissed. This is not a 'possibility' - it's a certainty if we don't manage congestion at the busiest stations. Richmond Hill will just have to wait.

- Paul

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

@WislaHD's point about potential fatalities should not be dismissed. This is not a 'possibility' - it's a certainty if we don't manage congestion at the busiest stations. Richmond Hill will just have to wait.

So your assertion is that it's not just possible but statistically probable and even certain that extending the Yonge line to Highway 7 will result in people dying as a result of falling onto the tracks from crowded platforms.

Interesting leap. How often does this happen in New York City, Tokyo or anywhere else?

But you do throw in an "IF we don't manage congestion." So I guess Richmond Hill doesn't have to wait if the TTC develops reasonable crowd management infrastructure? Is this already in the works for Yonge/Eglinton or is it only 905ers putting TTC riders at risk? (And not the ones driving to Finch, cycling or taking the bus there now - but the ones who would get on the extended subway.) Just trying to grasp the ins and outs of this logical and not-at-all-extreme inevitability.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A reminder that Metrolinx's study showed that the Yonge line would essentially be at capacity in 2031 if the Yonge extension is built along with GO RER. The Yonge line is 11% over capacity today.

ATC and the spadina extension are going to make a big impact on the lines capacity. Without the Yonge extension, the line will be under capacity.

It's not going to be world ending or people killing. The real reason you need the DRL is that you are leaving no room for growth. If the Yonge extension opens in, say, 2027, you have no room for growth just 4 years after opening.

It's important to build the DRL at the same time as the extension to ensure that it remains under capacity far into the future.


One thing I find interesting is that if the DRL gets built to Sheppard, the Yonge line will actually have less use than the Bloor line. The DRL will also be just below the Yonge line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

One thing I find interesting is that if the DRL gets built to Sheppard, the Yonge line will actually have less use than the Bloor line. The DRL will also be just below the Yonge line.

Which report did you source that from? The YRNS predicted that Yonge would still have slightly higher ridership than Bloor, if I'm remembering correctly.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

So your assertion is that it's not just possible but statistically probable and even certain that extending the Yonge line to Highway 7 will result in people dying as a result of falling onto the tracks from crowded platforms.

Interesting leap. How often does this happen in New York City, Tokyo or anywhere else?

But you do throw in an "IF we don't manage congestion." So I guess Richmond Hill doesn't have to wait if the TTC develops reasonable crowd management infrastructure? Is this already in the works for Yonge/Eglinton or is it only 905ers putting TTC riders at risk? (And not the ones driving to Finch, cycling or taking the bus there now - but the ones who would get on the extended subway.) Just trying to grasp the ins and outs of this logical and not-at-all-extreme inevitability.

I'm not totally sure about it resulting in deaths, but I can sympathize with the fear; the crushing feels quite dangerous during disruptions. Been there, done that, would prefer if it never happened.

I took this picture (and subsequently uploaded it to the Relief Line on Wikipedia) at Bloor-Yonge after the subway shutdown due to a mystery liquid in March 2015. This was a crush that, admittedly, could have been managed better. People continued pouring in from Line 2 and the street even with Line 1 shut down here (at the time), and the stairs were being blocked to prevent people from getting out. It took two or three whole minutes after my arrival before TTC constables came in to clear a path on the stairs, and shooing people out.

I can't imagine that again with more people in 2031.

 

[crs1026]

So your assertion is that it's not just possible but statistically probable and even certain that extending the Yonge line to Highway 7 will result in people dying as a result of falling onto the tracks from crowded platforms.

Interesting leap. How often does this happen in New York City, Tokyo or anywhere else?

But you do throw in an "IF we don't manage congestion." So I guess Richmond Hill doesn't have to wait if the TTC develops reasonable crowd management infrastructure? Is this already in the works for Yonge/Eglinton or is it only 905ers putting TTC riders at risk? (And not the ones driving to Finch, cycling or taking the bus there now - but the ones who would get on the extended subway.) Just trying to grasp the ins and outs of this logical and not-at-all-extreme inevitability.

That photo ^ is a good demonstration of the problem. It's not just falling onto tracks - that is easily solved with platform doors. But the crush of people throughout stations is a concern. A "mystery liquid" doesn't generate much panic, but smoke in the air sure does. I haven't a clue how New York or Tokyo solve the problem, those solutions may not apply given the limited stairways and walkways in our stations.

Sure, one could solve the problem with a lottery, or similar to the QEW traffic lights that space out cars using the on ramps. Every tenth passenger gets turned away everywhere, only so many people allowed to enter per hour. That seems a bit contrived. Just don't build the extension until we have the Relief Line in place.

Every community at the end of our current subway lines will argue for inclusion. On my personal list of inclusiveness goals, this just isn't the one I would put at the top.

- Paul

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Which report did you source that from? The YRNS predicted that Yonge would still have slightly higher ridership than Bloor, if I'm remembering correctly.

I presume he's referring to this study - which gets debunked by the "we don't need to study SSE vs. LRT" Toryites and YNSE dissenters alike. Still the closest thing to actual data on the future network. (Looks like that info is Slides 32/33)

I'm too lazy to page through in detail right now but I do seem to recall that you're right. ATC, RER etc. all open up capacity - not THAT much capacity but (if I may paraphrase and editorialize) enough to facilitate the extension as long as other measures (ie the DRL) are also in the pipe.

That photo ^ is a good demonstration of the problem. It's not just falling onto tracks - that is easily solved with platform doors. But the crush of people throughout stations is a concern.

Every community at the end of our current subway lines will argue for inclusion. On my personal list of inclusiveness goals, this just isn't the one I would put at the top.

With all due respect that photo - as explained - is not typical operation. No one is questioning whether the line is at capacity or that it's very busy, especially at Yonge/Bloor.

But you can't just take a picture of one place in an extreme circumstance and say, "I'm worried the whole system could be like this."

Yeah, sure - I wouldn't dismiss legit safety concerns and I've been on packed trains and in that kind of mess at Bloor. But let's not exaggerate the actual effects of this specific extension.

Obviously it will - and should - stimulate ridership growh and intensification but that's not happening on opening day. No one - at least no one I've heard - raised the same concerns about Yonge-Eg. (I've heard a bit more recently, but certainly not before the Crosstown was approved.) I haven't heard a single person raise the same conerns about the SSE either, which (obviously) will funnel more people (but not that many!) into Yonge/Bloor. So this line with no capacity is somehow able to handle both of those extensions. Weird!

So, I'm going to offer up a theory that the issue is not REALLY safety concerns; it's 905ers crowding out 416ers.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions about what should go on the top of their priority list. I'm not going to reiterate all the planning arguments except to say that IMHO it's obviously extending contiguous high level intensification from the 401 to the 407, obviously going to drive ridership growth, obviously going to facilitate every provincial policy from the PPS down the local OPs, and obviously going to encourage at least some degree of modal shift in a suburb. If that doesn't check enough boxes for you, so be it. but it's on the province's list and it's surely on the federal radar too and it's already got a complete TPAP approved by TO City Council (way ahead of the SSE and WAY WAY ahead of the DRL) so once the capacity concerns are addressed, in one way or another, there's not much actual debate to be had