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

ARG1 said:
That won't end well. Yonge Street is 5 lanes large and having dedicated bus lanes would narrow traffic down to 1 lane per direction, and that's a very heavily trafficked corridor. Unlike Morningside with RapidTO, you won't be able to get away with squeezing car traffic that much.
Click to expand...
If only they put in a subway so that people could use that instead. We know that the single-occupant motorist is the cause of most traffic congestion. If the walk, cycle, or take public transit, that would reduce the heavy traffic congestion.
 
Last edited:
ARG1 said:
That won't end well. Yonge Street is 5 lanes large and having dedicated bus lanes would narrow traffic down to 1 lane per direction, and that's a very heavily trafficked corridor. Unlike Morningside with RapidTO, you won't be able to get away with squeezing car traffic that much.
Click to expand...
They could paint it down the center lane, making it unidirectional (towards Finch in the morning, towards RH in the afternoon). Don't know how stops would work, though.
 
DirectionNorth said:
They could paint it down the center lane, making it unidirectional (towards Finch in the morning, towards RH in the afternoon). Don't know how stops would work, though.
Click to expand...
That's precisely why it won't work, not to mention you're basically removing the ability for cars to turn left which will really never go over well.
 
DirectionNorth said:
They could paint it down the center lane, making it unidirectional (towards Finch in the morning, towards RH in the afternoon). Don't know how stops would work, though.
Click to expand...
From link.
foster_center.jpg

8541194936_2170208189.jpg

8126827593_bfbe13f870.jpg

8120881914_b44e81313c.jpg
 
ARG1 said:
That's precisely why it won't work,
Click to expand...
The section south of Clark is 7 lanes; that section can have curb-side lanes. Nothing wrong there.

North of Clark, it might be fine to just leave it as-is, with queue jumping lanes whenever possible (which I admit is not very often).
not to mention you're basically removing the ability for cars to turn left which will really never go over well.
Click to expand...
They can turn left in the left-lane (out of the two lanes for general traffic). Works fine where I've seen it.
 
Last edited:
DirectionNorth said:
The section south of Clark is 7 lanes; that section can have curb-side lanes. Nothing wrong there.
Click to expand...
That section has peak hour HOV lanes - exclusive to busses, taxis, and cars with 2 or more passengers, its effectively a red paint lane already. Furthermore, this will only be a real benefit to northbound busses, southbound busses typically don't even use that lane because you don't really have stops south of Steeles, and busses have to turn left to get to Finch Terminal.

North of Clark, it might be fine to just leave it as-is, with queue jumping lanes whenever possible (which I admit is not very often).
DirectionNorth said:
They can turn left in the left-lane. Works fine where I've seen it.
Click to expand...
The left lane you just turned into a bus lane?
 
I hope they end up building at least one more station. It would help me so much, and it makes me sad to see that they are spending so much money on this extension but skimping out on having stations which is a fraction of the cost, which is the most important part.
 
steviej1 said:
I hope they end up building at least one more station. It would help me so much, and it makes me sad to see that they are spending so much money on this extension but skimping out on having stations which is a fraction of the cost, which is the most important part.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind if they added a station but they're definitely not a fraction of the cost. Depending on depth and such they could be $500m, no?
The only reason they could afford to do High Tech AND Bridge is because it's relatively cheap to build them at grade.

As for this protest...now they're on about environmentally sensitive lands? Where' are those? I think it increases their visibility to be partnering with these other groups but it also weakens their argument because the issues with the Ontario Line just aren't really the same. It muddies the waters, IMHO to be dragging in environmental lands and MZOs and all this other stuff.

Good luck to em!
 
What do y'all think about elevating the section after cummer to clark, dipping underground again (thornhill heritage area) until the valley just north of centre and continuing above ground for the remainder? am I crazy?
 
boilwater said:
What do y'all think about elevating the section after cummer to clark, dipping underground again (thornhill heritage area) until the valley just north of centre and continuing above ground for the remainder? am I crazy?
Click to expand...
Might be challenging. If its feasible then sure but I'd rather get this thing built ASAP instead of waiting even more years on more studies and designs.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
I wouldn't mind if they added a station but they're definitely not a fraction of the cost. Depending on depth and such they could be $500m, no?
The only reason they could afford to do High Tech AND Bridge is because it's relatively cheap to build them at grade.
Click to expand...

I'd be very surprised if the Cummer / Drewry station cannot be built for a lot less than $500M.

If they only coordinated with the construction happening now in the south-east corner of Yonge & Cummer .. They could basically use the huge Food Basic / plaza parking lot for the construction site. The distance from the north end of the existing tunnel at Finch to the southern edge of the parking lot is about 350 m. Probably doesn't require TBMs, can be just dug. And, the Finch station is not very deep, hence the Cummer station wouldn't have to be very deep either.

One can counter that south of Cummer is not the best location for the station box, as it is a lot closer to Finch Stn than to the next station at Steeles. Preferably the station box should be located north of Cummer, perhaps even north of Wedgewood. But choosing between a station shifted to the south from the ideal spot, and having no station at all, I'd rather go with the former.
 
boilwater said:
What do y'all think about elevating the section after cummer to clark, dipping underground again (thornhill heritage area) until the valley just north of centre and continuing above ground for the remainder? am I crazy?
Click to expand...
There's an elevation change of about ~20+m between roughly Doncaster and Clarke, a distance of about 0.5km,which might create grade problems going from x above to y below in such a short distance.
Rainforest said:
I'd be very surprised if the Cummer / Drewry station cannot be built for a lot less than $500M.

If they only coordinated with the construction happening now in the south-east corner of Yonge & Cummer .. They could basically use the huge Food Basic / plaza parking lot for the construction site. The distance from the north end of the existing tunnel at Finch to the southern edge of the parking lot is about 350 m. Probably doesn't require TBMs, can be just dug. And, the Finch station is not very deep, hence the Cummer station wouldn't have to be very deep either.

One can counter that south of Cummer is not the best location for the station box, as it is a lot closer to Finch Stn than to the next station at Steeles. Preferably the station box should be located north of Cummer, perhaps even north of Wedgewood. But choosing between a station shifted to the south from the ideal spot, and having no station at all, I'd rather go with the former.
Click to expand...

There are several high pressure petroleum pipelines north of Finch station. I don't know if boring or trenching favours one over the other for avoiding those.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top