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

The study also says that, while the Yonge Line will be "under capacity", 96% of capacity will be used by 2021, whereas the 2015 base case has the line at 111% of capacity. So you likely could have Yonge North proceed ahead of a DRL, but you would probably start to see capacity issues very soon after.

Don't tell that to TJO... looks like he bought a bridge if he believes the fairy tale of 30% more room but I'd put my head in the sand and hold my breath for as long as possible if I could get a subway to my door too especially when I don't have to foot the bill. Have faith!
 
In that ppt there is also "3. Direct staff to work in consultation with York Region, City of Toronto and the TTC to advance the project development of the Yonge North Subway Extension to 15% preliminary design and engineering;"

Does it mean the entire project gets green light to 15% progress? (or 15% of the design and engineering part..which could merely mean nothing lol)
It means 15% of the design. This will help to further refine the costs.

Keep in mind, it is typical for large projects such as this to proceed to construction long before 100% design is complete.
 
I would bet good money that there will soon be a renewed push to get the Yonge Extension started, particularly now that the Minister of Transportation is (once again) the member from Vaughan. I would not be surprised to see Metrolinx fund it 100% either.

Sorbara was the finance minister, not transpo, but I get your point. And I think you're right, this report does A LOT to undermine the caveats TTC put on not approving the Yonge extension. I'm curious to hear how Toronto responds to it; whether they say it's BS or raises interesting questions etc.

Don't tell that to TJO... looks like he bought a bridge if he believes the fairy tale of 30% more room but I'd put my head in the sand and hold my breath for as long as possible if I could get a subway to my door too especially when I don't have to foot the bill. Have faith!

Hey, I didn't make up the number or toss out (like some here do) "Oh, I bet all this infrastructure will open up 30% capacity!" That's a number developed by some smart people.

Modelling is not an exact science but let's say it's only half that; 15% is still pretty impressive, isn't it? FWIW, to the extent you can trust modelling, I trust Metrolinx's over TTC's. Again, I thought the most interesting thing in the modelling is that they don't see significant uptick in going full RER with GO. I'm not the only one who's pointed out how little potential there is with that line simply because of how it goes into the Don Valley etc. but the idea that RH doesn't need a subway because of GO has been a consistent thread here so it's interesting to see it borne out in the data (I'm sure there's a more detailed report that comes with the powerpoint).

I don't know if there's someone more engineery here who can answer about the design percentages but I feel like 30% is considered a very serious, greenlight-level of design and I feel like this project has been stuck at around 5% since the EA. So, 15% isn't quite getting it shovel ready but it's a big move forward....in baseball terms, it might not be on deck but it's in the hole.

It's interesting, just that the DRL has taken so long it's getting surpassed as SmartTrack and RER go forward.
 
I am concerned that they seem to be planning for a 96% capacity utilization.

Any engineer would say it is not a good idea, taking into account inevitable surge loads, and demand backlogs caused by prior delays.
 
I found it interesting that of the DRL long option 19200 ridership, with 18200 coming from bloor/yonge lines...I am assuming the 1000 left is coming from streetcars/busses or people living near to the station....but this seems extremely low to me for a line that goes all the way up to sheperd...I would assume a lot of people would move from car->drl given the location near the 401/dvp and that there would also be a bunch of people who were too lazy to take transit to yonge and drove instead that would switch if they could walk to a new station...are they counting new riders or only switchers?

Given the price of this, and the price of SmartTrak, I would take DRL long any day...although both would be nice.

Also think that this report is just a backdoor to getting the Yonge North built...
 
Sorbara was the finance minister, not transpo, but I get your point. And I think you're right, this report does A LOT to undermine the caveats TTC put on not approving the Yonge extension. I'm curious to hear how Toronto responds to it; whether they say it's BS or raises interesting questions etc.



Hey, I didn't make up the number or toss out (like some here do) "Oh, I bet all this infrastructure will open up 30% capacity!" That's a number developed by some smart people.

Modelling is not an exact science but let's say it's only half that; 15% is still pretty impressive, isn't it? FWIW, to the extent you can trust modelling, I trust Metrolinx's over TTC's. Again, I thought the most interesting thing in the modelling is that they don't see significant uptick in going full RER with GO. I'm not the only one who's pointed out how little potential there is with that line simply because of how it goes into the Don Valley etc. but the idea that RH doesn't need a subway because of GO has been a consistent thread here so it's interesting to see it borne out in the data (I'm sure there's a more detailed report that comes with the powerpoint).
You keep hammering that 30% number, but you are ignoring a lot of key points from the study;

- 2015 Base, the Yonge Line is operating at 31200 pphpd, with a capacity of 28000 pphpd. 111% capacity utilization.
- By 2021, TTC expects that ATC & new trains will increase capacity to 36000 pphpd. This is the 30% that you mentioned.

However

- Population and employment growth to 2030 is expected to increase demand by 6600 pphpd
- By 2017, opening of the TYSSE is supposed to decrease demand by 1200 pphpd.
- By 2025, GO RER is expected to decrease demand by 4200pphpd

This brings the Yonge Line in 2031 to 32,300. 89% capacity utilization.

Yonge North is expected to increase this from 32,300, by 2400, to 34,700 pphpd. 96% capacity utilization.

You could technically say that the DRL is no longer necessarily holding back Yonge North, because Yonge North will not push the Yonge Line over capacity. But to me, that is a dangerous argument, as it will bring the line to to being close to overcapacity. It would erase the buffer that we have created with ATC and new trains to increase reliability of the line and put us into the same situation again.

I support the extension, but I think it would be a big mistake for it to go forward without subway network relief for the Yonge Line.
 
You keep hammering that 30% number, but you are ignoring a lot of key points from the study;

I keep hammering it? I mentioned it in my initial posting of the report and then I said that even if it's only a 15% improvement, that's still pretty good. So, I beg to differ with your characterization.

You could technically say that the DRL is no longer necessarily holding back Yonge North, because Yonge North will not push the Yonge Line over capacity. But to me, that is a dangerous argument, as it will bring the line to to being close to overcapacity. It would erase the buffer that we have created with ATC and new trains to increase reliability of the line and put us into the same situation again.

Well, clearly they shouldn't be going through all this work to put themselves right on the edge, capacity-wise. They don't dismiss the DRL out of hand. I read it as basically saying they should keep working on the DRL buuuut if you're really doing RER (along with ATO, fare integration and all these other things) that will buy you enough room to do the extension without the DRL as a pre-requisite. It doesn't mean you never need it.

FWIW, I never dismissed the need for the DRL but did suggest, since the planning is so far advanced, it was worth starting Yonge ASAP and then getting the DRL online immediately afterwards. This is effectively saying RER allows you to do that. In an ideal world, we'd build it all and just keep rolling from one important piece of the network to the other.
 
I keep hammering it? I mentioned it in my initial posting of the report and then I said that even if it's only a 15% improvement, that's still pretty good. So, I beg to differ with your characterization.r.
Yes, you do. In two posts you presented the 30% capacity improvement, but don't seem to mention at all any of the other numbers that Metrolinx presented in their report. It presents a very one-sided view of the situation, which is clearly not the reality if you actually look at the numbers.

Well, clearly they shouldn't be going through all this work to put themselves right on the edge, capacity-wise. They don't dismiss the DRL out of hand. I read it as basically saying they should keep working on the DRL buuuut if you're really doing RER (along with ATO, fare integration and all these other things) that will buy you enough room to do the extension without the DRL as a pre-requisite. It doesn't mean you never need it.
I'm pretty sure that we basically agree, although I still think that the DRL is more pressing and should be pushed first (ideally both, as you said, but that doesn't seem to be reality).

One thing that this report doesn't seem to look at, is the relief that a full "U" DRL could potentially provide to overloaded streetcar lines like the 501 and 504. To me, this is a huge benefit and shouldn't be overlooked so easily. I suppose that isn't the purpose of this report, though.
 
Last edited:
This brings the Yonge Line in 2031 to 32,300. 89% capacity utilization.

Yonge North is expected to increase this from 32,300, by 2400, to 34,700 pphpd. 96% capacity utilization.

Have they run models that look at spreading out demand? Such as mandatory flex time for employees not in a customer facing or manufacturing job (e.g. office jobs). And then adding peak surcharges/off peak discounts? This will move the non-critical trips outside of this peak time and maybe free up 5% additional capacity.

Flextime is when an employee sets his own start time. The employer sets a time that everyone has to be in the office (e.g. 10-3:30) and the number of hours required to work (8 hours). It allows for easier access to daycare (one parent works 7:30-3:30 and the other works 10-6) and permits workers to ride on transit when it is cheaper (off-peak).

And with Presto it will not be difficult technically to implement. Now politically is a different story
 
Have they run models that look at spreading out demand? Such as mandatory flex time for employees not in a customer facing or manufacturing job (e.g. office jobs). And then adding peak surcharges/off peak discounts? This will move the non-critical trips outside of this peak time and maybe free up 5% additional capacity.

Flextime is when an employee sets his own start time. The employer sets a time that everyone has to be in the office (e.g. 10-3:30) and the number of hours required to work (8 hours). It allows for easier access to daycare (one parent works 7:30-3:30 and the other works 10-6) and permits workers to ride on transit when it is cheaper (off-peak).

And with Presto it will not be difficult technically to implement. Now politically is a different story

I definitely saw a quote from someone at TTC this week, with all the Presto talk, about how once it's all online they can look at different fare structure, including off-peak fares. I think that by 2017 the current fare system will be a thing of the past, or close to it. How it practically works out - in terms of cross-boundary trips, shifting times etc. - remains to be seen but it's fare to say Presto is one tool for at least some more efficient use of capacity.
 
I had the feeling that with more preliminary engineering works of DRL-Long and Yonge north being done, when the time Federal's $$ are ready to flow for Toronto, Smart Track will loose the bid for sure.
 
SmartTrack is just the GO RER plan, as City staff has confirmed. There's a good chance it will require zero funds from the city. Hopefully that means that we can refocus our funding efforts on LONG.
 

Back
Top