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

[Chuck]

I agree with Anth, people have this kind of mental block when it comes to Mississauga. This may be partially due to Mississauga trying to be distinct from Toronto (whereas Markham, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, they don't really have any identity). The Toronto subway map probably also has something to do with it. The distances are a great deal more compressed on the N-S lines due to the way we write (left to right) and because MCC is on an E-W axis, the stops have to take up more width for the names of the stations (plus on the actual subway trains, they have more width than height to deal with where the ads and maps go).

No, this is still not the reason. Bringing the subway just into either Mississauga or York requires an equally small extension of only 2 - yes 2! - kilometres each. The difference though is that an extension up to Highway 7 is still a minor project that could be completed for less than $2 billion. An extension to MCC is a major project equal in length to a new subway line from downtown to Sheppard. The reason why Highway 7 is being considered whereas MCC is not is because people recognize the immense size of the latter project. It has nothing to do with how people perceive York versus Mississauga.

Consider also that the majority of York's high order transit projects are focused on improving transit between York and Toronto. In the case of Mississauga, most of its high order transit projects are focused on improving transit within Mississauga. Assuming that both regions did their homework correctly and with the same methodology, just concede that there actually might be more justification for a York extension than a Mississauga extension even when you ignore costs.

 

[Chuck]

Lastly, travel patterns are much difference between York and Mississauga. If 50,000 new residents move into the Yonge corridor within York Region, the majority of them will head directly south on the subway into Toronto. If 50,000 new residents move into the subway corridor in Mississauga, chances are they are staying in Mississauga and would scatter in all directions. Travel patterns and volumes in York support a smaller subway system that MUST be connected to Toronto. Travel patterns in Mississauga support a larger but independent subway system with no connection to Toronto.

 

[unimaginative2]

I've highlighted the problem with your line of reasoning. Under the current system, that'd be a double fare, so I'd avoid that kind of a transfer at all cost. And of course, Milton doesn't stop at Boor/Dundas West. It's questionable whether it EVER will.

I'm not against regional rail. I take GO more than I take the subway. But if I'm taking GO, I refuse to pay a double fare and take the subway after. GO goes to Union. If from Union I have to take the subway, I won't take GO at all, I'll drive to Kipling and take the subway from there.

There is a demand for a subway west of Kipling. A million people live just west of Toronto. It seems silly to ignore them. We can talk romantically about the joys of real regional rail and talk about Europe all we want, but this isn't Europe, and things aren't ideal. Regional Rail would be up to GO anyway, not the TTC. In the meantime, MCC needs a subway link.

Coruscanti, you're missing the point here. Real regional rail is absolutely nothing like the GO service that you're used to. Obviously it wouldn't have a different fare from a subway or any other service. I'll repeat that: Real regional rail by definition would have the same fare structure as any local service, including subway. There's no point in introducing regional rail service without full fare integration.

It seems like you're so set on a subway for Mississauga--I can understand that feeling--that it's making you unwilling to even consider any alternatives that offer all off the benefits of a subway and many more. Regional rail is very possible, and is quite obviously the best way to serve the million people living west of Toronto. It's better than a subway and surely we can get over these ridiculous jurisdictional wrangles. It just doesn't make sense to spend billions on an unnecessary subway that would permanently preclude real regional rail service to MCC just because we're too lazy to work out fare arrangements.

Anth has pointed out the issues he has with intermediate stop location. What is your actual reason that a subway to MCC alone should be built rather than express rapid transit service that would serve the entire City of Mississauga? Or do you believe that two directly parallel rapid transit routes should be built a few blocks apart? Because the latter I can tell you would never happen.

 

[kettal]

If the fare was the same, and GO had a frequency better than 20 minutes, I can imagine very few scenarios where the subway would be the preferred option for a rider heading out of MCC.

 

[Epi]

Very good way to look at things Epi, But it would take still a lot more for the system to be set up that way, Do you think this could happen right off the bat or would this be phased in over time?

It would definitively have to be phased in over time. Taking the routes that exist currently, we do have some infrastructure which already supports this or will in the near future.

For instance, we already have Union, Bloor and Kipling stations which are right on subway lines. Agincourt will be on the new Transit City line, and Highway 7 Richmond Hill will be on the proposed Yonge subway extension.

The key to all of this is some sort of fare integration. This would allow bidirectional travel on local transit (including subway) which would draw riders towards the train stations. If trains ran at a high enough frequency, then it would actually make a lot of sense for riders to bypass the subway and local systems altogether and go straight for the express train service.

One interesting way to get more riders on the Richmond Hill GO line would be to do a bit of subway station 'infill' on the Yonge Line. Adding 2 extra stops between Eglinton to York Mills might increase travel times just long enough to make GO even more attractive to passengers, especially if GO frequencies were up to every 5-10 minutes. This would also increase service levels for people living along Yonge and take away that ridiculous 2km gap inbetween stations that we have now.

As for the Stouville line, at Agincourt, again if GO frequencies could be increased massively, then there's no reason why these wouldn't be major hubs. Similarly the Milliken station and Unionville stations can easily be made into major transit hubs of their own through some rejigging of bus lines. Unionville is already getting there with VIVA service and the planned Downtown Markham, and with proper planning for density and local transit I believe that Milliken could become a major hub as well.

For the Milton line, Kipling is a major transit hub already, and with better service, it could easily get commuters to travel EAST on the Bloor subway to take this line down to Union as a sort of heavy rail DRL. As well MCC would be super well served again if frequencies could be increased.

GO should also look into reopening the line that runs through Summerhill as a line, and thus serve the central city well with service.

 

[Dan416]

Coruscanti, you're missing the point here. Real regional rail is absolutely nothing like the GO service that you're used to. Obviously it wouldn't have a different fare from a subway or any other service. I'll repeat that: Real regional rail by definition would have the same fare structure as any local service, including subway. There's no point in introducing regional rail service without full fare integration.

It seems like you're so set on a subway for Mississauga--I can understand that feeling--that it's making you unwilling to even consider any alternatives that offer all off the benefits of a subway and many more. Regional rail is very possible, and is quite obviously the best way to serve the million people living west of Toronto. It's better than a subway and surely we can get over these ridiculous jurisdictional wrangles. It just doesn't make sense to spend billions on an unnecessary subway that would permanently preclude real regional rail service to MCC just because we're too lazy to work out fare arrangements.

Anth has pointed out the issues he has with intermediate stop location. What is your actual reason that a subway to MCC alone should be built rather than express rapid transit service that would serve the entire City of Mississauga? Or do you believe that two directly parallel rapid transit routes should be built a few blocks apart? Because the latter I can tell you would never happen.

I think I've reiterated my point ad nauseam that GO and subway serve different markets, and therefore both are required. Even with regional rail, I think a subway would still be required. The subway should stay on Bloor St and not divert to Dundas anyway. So if that were the case, they really wouldn't be that close to each other anyway.

Besides, your point about having rapid transit close to each other is pretty moot since if MCC got regional rail, every other GO line would have it as well, and there are many "parallel" GO and TTC subway lines. So that's not a limiting factor.

I also don't see how spending billions to divert Milton to MCC is going to really be any better than spending billions to extend the subway to MCC. I see this whole regional rail thing as something taking place far in the future, because as it stands, we're nowhere near it now. A train every hour (as on Lakeshore) does NOT provide subway-like frequency. And that's the closest thing we have as now.

First we'd need to A) get all-day service on all lines, B) eliminate the double fares C) divert the Milton line to MCC through a tunnel and build a new Erindale station, D) electrify the entire GO system, E) buy new rolling stock F) add new stations. Doing any of those items would be a challenge in and of itself. I think it's far easier to just extend the subway to MCC. Probably cheaper too.

 

[Anth]

My only question is the need for a parallel subway and regional rail service. What stations would the subway serve that regional rail wouldn't? The area that they would pass through isn't substantially built up today and would rely on redevelopment for most of its walk-in ridership. If that's the case, what's the difference between stops at Dundas and stops at the rail corridor a block away? I definitely support more transit to Mississauga and I'm willing to be persuaded.

I think I'm starting to see that the argument hinges on the extent to which one believes the triangular areas between the corridors will be redeveloped and the form that redevelopment would take.

If one believes that broad redevelopment will take place (i.e. the solid wall of industrial properties lining the rail corridor will yield to redevelopment pressure and the existing commercial Dundas corridor won't be strong enough to focus it exclusively along its length), then the argument for a subway is indeed diminished since Dundas itself becomes less important and travel in the areas between the corridors would be unimpeded.

If one believes that focused redevelopment will take place (i.e. industrial properties along the rail corridor remain as they are and Dundas itself is intensified), then I claim the rail corridor is awkwardly placed to provide rapid local service and/or transfers to points of interest between Hurontario and Kipling (especially between Hurontario and Cawthra) along Dundas, which would be even more important in this scenario.

Other factors:

Are stops likely to be changed or added to the Milton line?

If one believes that the existing stops will be changed or new stops will be added, then the argument for a subway is diminished. Conversely, if one believes that they will likely remain the same, then it is strengthened.

Will an MCC diversion materialize?

If one believes than an MCC diversion is likely, then the having both Milton regional rail and a Bloor extension to Square One would be more redundant. Conversely, if one believes the alignment of the Milton line will remain the same, then the case for a subway extension is strengthened.

How important is direct, continuous connectivity through both Sherway and Dundas/Hurontario?

If one believes it isn't a big deal and the additional transfers are acceptable, then the subway argument is diminished. Otherwise, a subway extension is the only option. These two major nodes become strangely isolated in any non-subway scenario. Transferring from regional rail at Kipling and taking a short subway extension to Sherway wouldn't be the end of the world depending on where you'd be coming from, but it would be less straightforward to get to the Dundas and Hurontario area.

I guess while I wouldn't say I'm a complete pessimist, given our transit planning record to date, I'm expecting electrification and increased frequency of Milton with high confidence, but stop changes with less confidence, and a full MCC diversion with little confidence at all. As for redevelopment, I think it's more likely to be focused along Dundas and I'm not sure regional rail alone (especially in the form I expect) can drive the broad redevelopment needed to render Dundas less important and mitigate the awkwardness of the rail corridor.

This is why I still like the idea of a full Bloor extension.

 

[Disparishun]

Really? How so?

Blue = 16,000

Then there are a couple of 3-4K ones, how does that == 40,000?

You beat me and I don't have access to a couple of backup drives with the data I used for my report early this year.

Blue carries just under 16,000 for the ""WHOLE"" route will 99 is about 1,500.

How many times do we have to rehash the same thing? It is really quite boring.

One interesting way to get more riders on the Richmond Hill GO line would be to do a bit of subway station 'infill' on the Yonge Line. Adding 2 extra stops between Eglinton to York Mills might increase travel times just long enough to make GO even more attractive to passengers, especially if GO frequencies were up to every 5-10 minutes.

Beggar-thy-neighbour is an astonishingly silly approach to transit planning. The way to make RH GO more attractive than the Yonge subway line is to improve it, not to handicap the alternative.

RH GO needs to be LRT-ized. It is a low-cost, low-hanging fruit method to offloading the north end of the Yonge line, particularly between Finch (soon norther) and Eglinton, which everyone agrees is overcrowded and overcapacity.

It needs to run every 5-10 minutes, and needs to have stops intersecting with the Steeles non-LRT, the Finch Stubway Bypass LRT (moving Old Cummer), Oriole stubway station (moving Leslie), Eglinton LRT (new), and somewhere downtown (new).

 

[RedRocket191]

How many times do we have to
Beggar-thy-neighbour is an astonishingly silly approach to transit planning. The way to make RH GO more attractive than the Yonge subway line is to improve it, not to handicap the alternative.

RH GO needs to be LRT-ized. It is a low-cost, low-hanging fruit method to offloading the north end of the Yonge line, particularly between Finch (soon norther) and Eglinton, which everyone agrees is overcrowded and overcapacity.

It needs to run every 5-10 minutes, and needs to have stops intersecting with the Steeles non-LRT, the Finch Stubway Bypass LRT (moving Old Cummer), Oriole stubway station (moving Leslie), Eglinton LRT (new), and somewhere downtown (new).

I agree with everything you say, but why convert to LRT? Assuming that the current crash worthiness regulations don't change then you would get a more flexible line if we developed a north american low-floor D/EMU (it could look like a bilevel with a pantograph for the sake of argument) because you could still run full sized trains in the corridor. Plus, it creates a product which can be used elsewhere.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

YRT routes that serve Finch may be close to 40K total daily ridership but not all of the riders actually connect to the subway. Unless they're express right to the subway, the same is also true for all MT and TTC routes, but since we don't have the data of how many are actually transferring, we're forced to use the full ridership figures. It's surely above 50%, though, probably 2/3.

One interesting way to get more riders on the Richmond Hill GO line would be to do a bit of subway station 'infill' on the Yonge Line. Adding 2 extra stops between Eglinton to York Mills might increase travel times just long enough to make GO even more attractive to passengers, especially if GO frequencies were up to every 5-10 minutes. This would also increase service levels for people living along Yonge and take away that ridiculous 2km gap inbetween stations that we have now.

No, that will do nothing to increase Richmond Hill GO ridership. Even if two stops were added to the Yonge line, adding an extra minute or so of travel time, oodles of time would still be saved by taking the subway for everyone living west of the RH line or everyone not going to somewhere within a few blocks of Union, no matter what GO's frequency is. To divert more than a handful off Yonge, you'd also need to add stops to the Richmond Hill line (which should be done, though). One is not a replacement for the other.

The Lawrence-York Mills gap is less than 2km, and a station at the midway point is not possible, anyway...it'd have to be shifted south so its south entrance would be no more than 5 blocks from Lawrence's north entrance. I think that Blythwood/Lytton and Willowdale are the only two real 'missing' stations on the subway network, although a few would be better shifted slightly.

 

[Disparishun]

I agree with everything you say, but why convert to LRT? Assuming that the current crash worthiness regulations don't change then you would get a more flexible line if we developed a north american low-floor D/EMU (it could look like a bilevel with a pantograph for the sake of argument) because you could still run full sized trains in the corridor. Plus, it creates a product which can be used elsewhere.

You may be right -- I don't know enough to say. I have in mind a fast, often-running, above-ground multicar technology which is able to stop every couple of kilometres if necessary, coexist in multiple-mode stations, and is not difficult to deploy. My instinct is that a diesel train is too cumbersome and too expensive to do all of that in an every-5-minute type environment. Could it, though?

 

[Whoaccio]

GO buses, in this case, seem like a better alternative to improved GO train service for RHC. I'm not sure an alternative is needed, as I think the Yonge extension is basically a good idea, but were I to propose an alternative it would have to be a kind of bus system. It's hardly authoritative, but Google maps gives a travel time of 27m from the Silvercity @ Yonge/Hwy7 to Union using the 407 to the DVP. Adding a stationless transitway from the 407 to the Gardiner couldn't be that expensive and would probably be speedier than GO trains. Buses could run on higher headways, further lowering total travel times.

Though it goes against the spirit of densifying the Yonge strip, a system like that could also disperse park n'ride lots around York Region. I would still prefer that the current subway proposal with nodal development at RHC go ahead, but some people seem hellbent on that not happening.

 

[RedRocket191]

You may be right -- I don't know enough to say. I have in mind a fast, often-running, above-ground multicar technology which is able to stop every couple of kilometres if necessary, coexist in multiple-mode stations, and is not difficult to deploy. My instinct is that a diesel train is too cumbersome and too expensive to do all of that in an every-5-minute type environment. Could it, though?

Yes I think they could, but what you have in mind is pretty much what I have in mind.

It doesn't really matter what it looks like or what colour it is, as long as it gets the job done, non?

The technicalities and definitions should not stop a good idea from going forward.

 

[Disparishun]

GO buses, in this case, seem like a better alternative to improved GO train service for RHC. I'm not sure an alternative is needed, as I think the Yonge extension is basically a good idea, but were I to propose an alternative it would have to be a kind of bus system.

LRT-izing (or whatever more accurate but evocative term is needed) RH GO is not an alternative to the Yonge extension. Nearly everyone agrees that loading on the Yonge line's northern half is near capacity and soon to be overcapacity -- irrespective of what other projects (like the Yonge Exension) do or do not go forward. So LRT-izing RH GO is a supplement, not an alternative.

Would a busway provide adequate capacity? The argument for Transit City is that buses do not provide enough to handle high demand. The point of turning RH GO into a viable route for its most viable portions -- that is, travellers piling west on Steeles and Finch buses to Finch subway, on the stubway to Sheppard subway, and so forth down to Eglinton -- is move people south more quickly on an express route that bypasses (and offloads) the Yonge line. They could then transfer west on lesser-used routes like the Finch LRT, Sheppard stubway and Eglinton LRT instead, or continue downtown to Union and, hopefully, to an intermediate LRT-interconnected downtown stop as well.

Though it goes against the spirit of densifying the Yonge strip, a system like that could also disperse park n'ride lots around York Region. I would still prefer that the current subway proposal with nodal development at RHC go ahead, but some people seem hellbent on that not happening.

Whether or not park n' ride is appropriate is surely independent of whether you do buses or LRTs or trains, right? Re hellbentness, I do doubt very seriously that the Yonge Extension will ever happen, but am happy to be along for the ride until its next derailments!

 

[Disparishun]

Yes I think they could, but what you have in mind is pretty much what I have in mind.

It doesn't really matter what it looks like or what colour it is, as long as it gets the job done, non?

The technicalities and definitions should not stop a good idea from going forward.

Agree 100%.