Update 2: The presentation from the Commission meeting is now online. (4MB PDF)
I will write up comments on this project on the weekend.
Update 1: Here is the text of the motion made by the Commission including the various caveats and requests for additional information.
Original Post:
The TTC staff report on the Richmond Hill subway is available online. (Warning 15M PDF)
Today, the Commission voted to endorse this report in principle with futher discussion and deputations to follow at the January meeting. The Commission also reaffirmed that Transit City was its first priority for system expansion, and sought a number of additional reports to clarify the impact of the subway extension on the existing network.
I do not have time now (Wednesday evening) to write this up in full, but will do so over the next few days. Some material was presented at the meeting which is not in the linked file.
Of particular concern to the Commission is the haste with which this project is rolling forward based on an assessment launched by York Region that had very little consideration for how the line would fit in the overall scheme of the network. I might be forgiven for thinking, only a month ago, that we had turned away from “my line first” planning to a network view thanks to the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan.
An argument can be made for extending the subway, but the true cost and impact are lowballed. Yes, the staff report raises many caveats about service and capacity impacts, but there is no real alternatives analysis, no sense that anyone has looked seriously at larger issues. I will turn to this when I discuss the report in detail.
Steve Munro 
I’m beginning to lose faith in Metrolinx and politicians in general over this. I’ve always maintained that while the Richmond Hill extension has some merit, it should be at the cost of the Sorbara Line. The fact that both lines are going to an area which doesn’t benefit the GTA as a whole and called for by parties outside the GTA is a big shame. Who has control over the TTC anyways?
LikeLike
The TTC just did a complete 180 degree turn. The report now states that ATO will not improve overall YUS line capacity because of the long dwell times at Bloor-Yonge from BD transfers. Hmmmm … didn’t I say that two months ago?
There is NO way to reliably and consistently speed up loading and unloading from that station without rebuilding both levels from scratch. It can’t be done. And trying to run two overlapped short-turn services (RHC DV) and (VCC FINCH) will cause sequencing delays in order to preserve the alternating service pattern. With the very tight headways, it won’t work smoothly.
Prediction … they’ll come back in 3 months and say a DRL is needed before Yonge North can proceed. If Norman Wilson, the designer of the Bloor-Danforth-University subway, were still alive, he’d probably be having a good laugh right about now. He never designed Bloor-Yonge as a major interchange, and predicted this would eventually happen.
LikeLike
At Richmond Hill station they project 113,500 boarding per day. Does that make any sense … that’s more then all the VIVA buses put together by a long shot combined with the buses that currently serve finch from York Region. Please correct me if I’m missing something!
LikeLike
Take it to Steeles, this is badly needed, but do not go any farther until we can handle the current capacity of the yonge line.
LikeLike
Build the Downtown Relief Line first and send it up Don Mills Road or the Don Valley with wide station spacing, every concession road at least, and let it go up into Markham. Maybe it can go the Markham City Centre to balance the Vaughan City Centre. We could have symmetric stupidity. In all seriousness it would provide a faster route downtown, it would not overload the Yonge line and it would divert some of the loading away from Yonge.
This plan would overload Yonge’s capacity at the major transfer points. Building the DRL would provide another route into the downtown and another connection to the Bloor Danforth in case of a break down on one line there would be an alternate route out of the core.
LikeLike
@Hamdi: Those figures are for 2031, after intensification is expected to have taken place on a dramatic scale, but on top of that, the figures on the ridership hasn’t been verified/vetted yet and are therefore not reliable. The TTC has requested figures for opening-day projections, as no such figures have yet been calculated or presented.
LikeLike
Looks like the only way to build the Yonge extension, is to rebuild Bloor-Yonge station.
But to rebuild Bloor-Yonge would require it to be closed for a period of months to years. It’s not feasible to close it for so long without first building the DRL from at least Queen station to Pape station.
As the first leg of the DRL is critical path to the Yonge extension, Metrolinx needs to reverse the priority on the two lines.
Steve: TTC staff claim they have a way to rebuild the station without closing it. I don’t believe them, but we shall see when they get the updated engineering report on this harebrained scheme.
LikeLike
How do the triple track section at Finch and the crossovers at Steeles and Richmond Hill Centre work. The Switches seem to be pointing the wrong way. Also could you provide a glossary of all those wonderful acronyms? I think that I have finally found them all somewhere in the report but it would help to know them in advance, specifically the PPUDO, BCA TPAP ATO/ATC, EA, etc. I believe that I have found them all but it would help to have them handy when reading one o the TTC’s reports.
Steve: The tail track at Finch would be converted to a double-ended pocket track. At Richmond Hill, it’s a single ended track. Finch short-turn trains would run into the pocket and out again just as they do today at St. Clair West. However, I wonder why they don’t put a new pocket north of Steeles given the massive number of buses that will come in at that location.
PPUDO: Passenger Pick Up Drop Off (aka “kiss and ride”)
BCA: Benefits Case Analysis (a Metrolinx term)
TRAP: Transit Project Assessment Process (the new streamlined Ontario Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for transit projects)
ATO/ATC: Automatic Train Operation/Control
LikeLike
Nick is 100 per cent right. I’ve always felt that Steeles should be the northern terminal for the Yonge line but now they want to take the line way up to Richmond Hill?! This is definitely more than I bargained for just like over on the Spadina extension to VCC which we all know is a done deal. If I were M. or Robert I quite honestly wouldn’t hold my breath on any change in priority on the DRL. I agree with both of them 100 per cent too but I know what either of them advocates just simply ain’t happening.
LikeLike
I would rather see frequent all-day service on the Richmond Hill GO line than a subway going up to highway 7.
LikeLike
1) The alignment beyond RHC appears to enter the Bala Sub ROW. Will the tail track be at grade?
If so…
2) Absurd as it sounds at first blush, do you suspect we’ll see a push between now and grand opening day to further extend the line “cheaply” at grade to Major Mac/RH GO?
Steve: No.
LikeLike
I note that Richmond Hill Centre station’s tail tracks are to line up with the existing rail line.
Given the pace that technology develops it gives us possible interesting options by the time I have grandkids – like running trains from elsewhere in the country directly into downtown toronto via the subway. This is many decades off however. It also might make for easier delivery of new subway trains.
LikeLike
I agree with Jeff.
THAT is where Metrolinx Priority should be. Assuming feasability (and I’m just looking at lines on a map) the GO Richmond Hill corridor can be extended (to meet up with VIVAs Newmarket Terminal vicinity) and stations can be added (particularly on Eglinton, where the new TransitCity line is likely to be.
All day, two-way service on Richmond Hill is an easy win (once all-day/two-way service is a reality on the Lakeshore Lines and Milton)
Two hours by subway/viva/bus to Yonge & Major Mac OR
40 minutes by four trains operating daily in morning and evening rush ONLY.
LikeLike
[The following comment came in as one unbroken paragraph. I have edited it for clarity.]
Steve, the downtown relief line should be built with this extension (phase 1). Everybody blogging here knows it and it should be included in transit city. Transit city should be as it is stated, not LRT city. Trolley bus, subway should also be considered, as well as LRT.
The university line is becoming maxed out also so it is more pressing to consider this line to be up and running by 2016 and forget about touching YONGE/BLOOR stations which could cost hundreds of millions including all the construction impacts yadi yada yada.
We should disconnect the Spadina subway after Dupont and continue it downtown as a flying U to King then east to the rail corridor then under Pape over the DVP to the hydro corridor along Overlea to Eglinton/Don Mills. The separation of YUS would be much easier on the Yonge line, which would terminate at St George or lower Bay, as Mimmo stated.
This would eliminate the spadina streetcar from Bloor to King, which half of them terminate to anyway. The 509 would terminate here at King. Steve I know you might shoot me for saying this about Spadina but ridership would justify this change, I believe.
If we space the stops, say Bloor, with the platform 10 meters south of it, we could build an entrance from Harbord too. The next stops would be at College, Dundas, Queen, Kingwest, University, Yonge, Church, Sherbourne, Parliament, Cherry, Broadview then following the rail corridor to Pape with a stop at Carlaw then dipping underground again to Bloor/Danforth, Cosburn, then to a new bridge, side by side along the DonLands/Pape Bridge to around and behind the Masonic Hall, along the hydro corridor to Don Mills Eglinton.
Some of this line would be outside of course. I’ve sort of mapped out the route by taking a drive and looking, imagining and estimating. I’m no expert by all means but I truly believe it can be done this way. This statement is long Steve, and I must apologize for this, but I need to give My perspective for Transit City.
Sheppard and Finch west should be built as LRT. I also think Jane and Don Mills would be better served by Trolley buses, articulated ones. Dufferin, Victoria park, and Lawrence west should also be included for trolley buses. The Sheppard subway should terminate at Victoria Park. This is where the LRT should go east from.
The new subway yard required for the Yonge extension alone would be better built by expanding Wilson by 50%. We can ask the Feds for the N/W part of the land behind the wilson yards so we can extended further into Downsview, to store and maintain the extra fleet required. The Sheppard west extension becomes feasable now, by adding Senlac, Bathurst, Downsview, then a tunnel leading to southbound YUS to access the yard, double tracked.
I would consider building tracks to connect to the North tracks going to Sheppard west station on YUS, with the potential for interlining half of the sheppard trains to VCC, to fill the gap left behind by short turning 2/3’rds of YUS. ATC is capable of handling two three lines with ease, but unfortunately, The TTC “Culture” doesn’t see it that way. This connection would fill the “missing link” between Sheppard east LRT to Finch west LRT (via Sheppard subway).
The Malvern LRT should be cancelled, since the Replacement LRT for the Old R/T would go there. I would build the kingston Road LRT instead from Vic park station to Guildwood. The Eglinton LRT From Kingston Road to the Airport.
Now comes the funding question, a $2 maximum charge congestion toll for using the DVP and QEW, all day weekdays. This will raise some good dough but resurfacing our badly needed roads should be included in this charge also. Buses use them too. Get rid of the sticker tax too. A 50 cent contribution for this would suffice, the rest to transit only.
LikeLike
It’s interesting to note that the Sheppard Subway could be extended west if a New Yonge Yard is not feasible as stated in the presentation pdf on page 38.
Considering I don’t see anywhere on the Yonge where a new yard can be built and I don’t think the Davisville yard can handle the extension in to York, my question to you Steve, is, what are the chances of the Sheppard west extension to Downsview actually happening? Connecting to the Wilson yard through a Downsview to Sheppard extension seems like a viable (yet expensive) way to allow for train storage for the Yonge north extension to RHC. I mean the current yards Davisville and Wilson certainly cannot store the future additional trains to service both extensions.
Steve: My understanding is that initial enthusiasm for the Sheppard connection has faded although it’s still in the hopper for evaluation. I will be writing about the whole scheme later this weekend (Christmas activities are eating up a good chunk of time these days), but my quick reply is that the TTC doesn’t need a “yard” in the conventional sense, only someplace to store trains up near Richmond Hill.
I am surprised that an underground set of storage tracks directly below the Langstaff parking lot hasn’t already been discussed. I have to verify to dimensions of the site, but it’s rather tempting and should be easy to build, not to mention much, much cheaper than 4 km of subway tunnel.
LikeLike
@ Nick J Boragina: running regular trains on subway tracks wouldn’t work for two major reasons. 1. they run on different track width size. 2. regular trains are alot taller than subway trains so they’ll never fit into a subway station.
LikeLike
Right now York Region wants two new subway extension from the city of Toronto extending into York Region, the Yonge Subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill Centre (Hwy 7) and the Sorbara,.. err, I mean Spadina Subway extension from Downsview to Sorbara Centre,… err, I mean Vaughan Corporate Centre (Jane & Hwy 7). The 6.8 km 6 station Yonge subway extension is projected to cost $2.4 Billion and the 8.6 km 6 station Spadina extension is projected to cost $2.6 Billion. That’s $5.0 BILLION in total! And this is a one time initial cost,… it doesn’t include ongoing maintenance cost.
BTW, the 6.4 km 5 station Sheppard subway line costed a bit under $1.0 billion in 2004 (factor in inflation and that works out to $1.1 billion in 2008 dollars). Less than half of the projected cost of the 6.8 km 6 station Yonge subway extension. Less than half of the projected cost of the 8.6 km 6 station Spadina extension. http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html
Speaking of maintenance cost, at the border between York Region and the City of Toronto is Steeles Avenue (Steeles Avenue East and Steeles Avenue West). Steeles Avenue is now the worst road in the entire province of Ontario! For the last 15 years it has been consistently voted as among the top 10 worst road in Ontario but now it has deteriorated further to become the worst in the province. Why? Because York Region and the City of Toronto can’t figure out who should pay for what portion of the repair! We’re talking about asphalt here,… nobody wants Steeles Avenue repaved with gold! Asphalt is only about $1 per square foot. What will it cost to fix the pot holes and repave parts of Steeles Avenue? We’re talking a few million dollars. The point here is that for years, York Region and the City of Toronto can’t figure out how to work together on routine maintenance of a road that involves a few million dollars in repairs. Yet, all the sudden York Region wants two subway extension extending from the City of Toronto into York Region at a total cost of $5.0 Billion??? $5.0 BILLION is 5,000 MILLIONS of dollars,…. the two can’t even figure out how to handle a maintenance project that cost a few million dollars, but now they want 5.0 Billion taxpayer dollars!
Where is this $5.0 BILLION dollar coming from? Well,… it’s coming from the province of Ontario and hopefully, the Federal government of Canada will contribute some. Hmmm,…. where does the Province of Ontario gets it’s money from? The Taxpayer! Where does the Federal government of Canada gets it’s money from? The Taxpayer! Folks, it doesn’t matter who the middle-man is,… whether it’s the Province of Ontario or the Federal government of Canada,… it’s the Taxpayer that’s paying!!!
If York Region wants these two subway extension into York Region,… then they should pay for all of it. The average cost of a home in York Region is 10% less than within the City of Toronto, yet in York Region they generally get a much bigger and newer house. And the residents of York Region enjoys much lower municipal property tax than the residents of the City of Toronto,… why? because the residents of the city of Toronto have been funding infrastructures like the TTC! York Region, if you want to play, you got to pay!
Go to the downtown to the Financial District where there’s lots of good jobs. Go into any office and ask the individual where they live,…. half of them live outside the city of Toronto, they live in 905! They pay 10% less for housing, enjoy much lower municipal property tax but yet spends most of their waking hours in the city of Toronto earning a high income and enjoying the infrastructures paid for by the residents of the city of Toronto.
Right now the centre of the GTA in terms of where people actually live is around Yonge and Sheppard,.. in about 10-15 years it’ll be around Yonge and Finch, where the Yonge Subway line ends. So should we extend the Yonge Subway line? If so, how far? At what cost?
Simply put, the city of Toronto and all the cities and regions surrounding it doesn’t cooperate together very well,… it’s time to amalgamate to cut all that bureaucracy so they can work towards common goals. Metrolinx was formed by the province as a band-aid solution towards a goal of setting up a regional network of transit,… but Metrolinx doesn’t have any balls! The province of Ontario already told Metrolinx the Spadina Subway extension from Downsview to Sorbara Centre,… err, I mean Vaughan Corporate Centre (Jane & Hwy 7) is a done deal,… it already have funding from the province. The volume of passengers doesn’t even justify a LRT line from Downsview station to York University,… let alone an LRT from Downsview to York University then to Sorbara Centre,… err, I mean Vaughan Corporate Centre. Just imagine, one day we’ll all be able to take the subway to Vaughan Corporate Centre,… to go to Ikea, Costco and Walmart! Yeah!
LikeLike
Transit City plans include an LRT on Don Mills to Danforth (presumbaly with an underground section in East York to make the connection to Danforth.)
The Downtown Relief line (as shown in the presentation) meets the Bloor Danforth line at Pape.
If the Eglinton LRT is to have at grade and underground sections then why couldn’t the Don Mills LRT and DRL be built togehter in the same way?
This would provide an alternative way to get downtown and would bypass the downtown section of the Yonge Subway.
Steve: My current favourite configuration is for the DRL to come all the way up to Eglinton where there would be a major transit hub linking the Eglinton LRT, Don Mills LRT and the DRL. This eliminates the need for a complex transfer station at Pape (or wherever) to handle the north-south through traffic.
For those who might want a continuous Don Mills subway to somewhere around Newmarket, we need to recognize that one seat rides to the edges of civilization are very bad planning and a misuse of capital.
LikeLike
@ Cam Taylor: Davisville yard is already at full capacity and there’s no run to expand,… well, unless they go into Mount Pleasant cemetery! Or build under the cemetery,… then there’s uninvited guest “dropping in”. Seriously, another major problem with Davisville is track length,… current subway trains are 6 cars long, and are routinely separated in groups of two so that they can be serviced (IE: On 6 car subway, car #3 needs to be serviced: at the yard separate car #2 from #3 and separate #4 from #5 so car #3 & #4 (joined) stay in the yard while car #1 & #2 (joined) and car #5 & #6 (joined) find another joined pair of cars to form 6 car subway and go back into service). Davisville yard was built to store cars in groups of two,… multiple of twos. Some tracks can handle 6 cars, 8 cars, 10 cars, 12 cars, etc,…
Problem for Davisville is next year, with automated signal system so subway can stop on a dime instead of requiring to stop within a certain range,… they can fit in an extra car on the subway. The new subways being delivered will be basically the equivalent of 7 cars long,.. and continuous so passengers can walk from one end to other (ie like those extra long streetcars or buses with the bend in the middle). These new subways that are 7 cars long and can’t be separated won’t fit onto the 6 car tracks at Davisville and will underutilize a lot of the storage tracks at Davisville.
Steve: I too wonder about the future of Davisville. Six-car unit trains are bad enough, but a move to seven-car trains may make life difficult there. The oddly-shaped site makes it difficult for the TTC to adjust track and maintenance facilities.
Personally, I like the idea of extending the Sheppard subway west to from Yonge to Downsview (there’s already 1km of subway tunnel west of Yonge!,… used to store trains at night),… and expanding the Wilson yard, lots of open land there.
Steve: It is not clear that there is actually enough land at Wilson to host the size of fleet that would be needed if the YUS operated on a 1’45” headway as planned in a future ATC-based world. Also, from a simple operational viewpoint, there’s a limit to how large a single facility can be without becoming unmanageable.
One of the main reasons the Sheppard West subway line would be useful is interconnectivity among subway lines. The current Yonge Subway line is by far the busiest line on the system. About once a week, it’ll go down usually during rush hours,…. a train breaks down or extended medical emergency or track jumper or whatever. End result subway doesn’t work and all the passengers flood out of the subway station onto the streets looking for buses. People are on the sideway spelling onto the curb lane of the roadway, buses taken from other routes are packed,… having a Sheppard West line will allow people to switch between Yonge and Spadina line when one line is down.
@ Steve: York Region wants the Yonge Subway extension but when it comes to a new ugly subway yard,… it’s not in my backyard! Building an underground set of storage tracks directly below Langstaff parking lot would be quite expensive. In addition, the land is owned by Ontario Power Generation,… see all those massive mega hydro towers up there,… they wouldn’t want to risk anything happening to them,… otherwise electrical service would be cut to a huge area of Ontario and parts of US. In today’s world utility companies are paranoid about “evil-doers” and what they can do,… just imagine an underground tunned beneath those mega hydro towers. Even just using their land for a parking lot took a lot.
Steve: Ah yes, Hydro. I had missed that. Hydro towers and the TTC do share rights-of-way elsewhere, but not quite that intimately.
Looking at the proposed placement of Richmond Hill Station, it is clear that the building now on the site will be demolished, presumably for something new with the station integrated into it. Between this redevelopment and the length of the tail tracks shown in the presentation, I have a hard time seeing how the TTC cannot keep half a dozen trains at Richmond Hill overnight.
In all of this, my suspicion is that there are folks at the TTC just salivating at the chance to “complete” the Sheppard subway, and the yard “problem” is a convenient way to force the issue. It’s an awfully expensive fix.
As I have written before, building subways is an addiction, and needs to be recognized and treated as such. Addicts will scheme every way imaginable to justify their needs.
I have no fundamental objection to subways, but they should not be built just for the sake of it. We are building a transit network that must serve a wide region, not running an unemployment insurance scheme for subway engineers. Indeed, if we could spend the same money on a wider assortment of lines, we would actually produce something of value to a wider population.
That has been and always will be my basic argument about subway planning.
LikeLike
Steve, do you imagine that tunnelling parallel to Hydro’s corridor (with their 500 kV lines) is easy to do?
Steve: See my reply to the previous comment in this thread. I concur that the Langstaff lands, although superficially attractive, would run into problems with Hydro.
Jeff and Drew, although I agree that all day Richmond Hill GO service is a must, it’s not an easy win. The line only has a single track from south of Oriole through the Don valley to Union station (which I’m guessing must be twinned to be useable for frequent service), and the Doncaster diamond must be grade separated for GO to even consider frequent service.
GO has grade separated Snider diamond – that’s the Barrie train – and Hagerman diamond – Stouffville train – as well as West Toronto diamond – Georgetown – recently, but as of this time I’m not aware of any plans to grade separate Doncaster.
Steve: Page 30 of Go2020 lists the details for each corridor, and on Richmond Hill this includes a grade separation project. The aim is for 15-20 peak period, peak direction service with counter-peak every 30 minutes or better. All day service would be on a 30 minute headway.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
In your response to Robert Wightman on the 18th at 4:44 p.m., I would make a wee correction to your terminology. My understanding of a middle track with entrance/exit switches/crossovers on both ends is a ‘centre track’. A pocket track is what is at the north end of Eglinton and the south end of Osgoode, for example, as the two of these have only one end with track switches.
Dennis Rankin
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
In comment to the recommended improved GO service for the Richmond Hill line, yes, do it. Far more cost effective and less disruptive to the overall system by far than a lengthened subway. But it can’t be in a vacuum. A downtown relief line or trebuchets at Bloor and the floor of the Don need to be considered too.
How’s about this idea which just now occurred to me. A GO platform in the valley which is long enough to be accessed at the north end by a connection to the Carlton cars on Gerrard and at the south end by the Dundas cars. The best of all worlds as those riders who don’t need to go to Union can access a rail line and get within the city in short order. No trebuchet required.
A new two way loop line can be instituted with Parliament, Gerrard, Broadview and Dundas. Then with the Parliament portion taking riders to King and looping Downtown on Wellington, as the Trippers on the Kingston Road service does now. New downtown access and an inexpensive Downtown Relief Line. Use it until something else can take its place. If it doesn’t prove popular, well nothing ventured nothing gained.
Quick transfer to Don River Swans too!!
Dennis
LikeLike
On a north-yonge yard.
If the finch hydro corridor or the highway 407 corridor (both have plenty of space) is used, you could place a davisville-sized yard on north yonge without any problems. There’s no reason hydro lines cannot be moved underground as they are in europe. In Calgary, they even build highways in hydro corridors. I do not see hydro being a big problem.
LikeLike
Three things:
1) W Redwood Says:
“We should disconnect the Spadina subway after Dupont and continue it downtown as a flying U to King then east to the rail corridor then under Pape over the DVP to the hydro corridor along Overlea to Eglinton/Don Mills. The separation of YUS would be much easier on the Yonge line, which would terminate at St George or lower Bay, as Mimmo stated.”
I think that the main reason for the existing character on Spadina is the Spadina LRT. To replace it by a subway would destroy the street. The stop spacing would be the same as on Yonge St. and the construction would destroy the street. A Downtown Relief Line will probably have to be built on the existing railway rights of way to Pape for cost reasons and to provide a faster service to the outer suburbs.
2) Have any of these politicians who want to extend the Yonge University Spadina lines up into York ridden the YUS for an equivalent distance? The TTC subways are not designed to be ridden for this distance. The stop spacing is too close on the inner end and the longitudinal seating sucks. Spend the money more wisely and build a line designed to do a different job.
3) My earlier question on the pocket track and turn backs was not on how they work but on what is the diagram actually trying to show, The switches appear to be facing the wrong direction in the diagram. Is this a new style for diagrams or is something screwy?
Steve: The diagram on page 53 of the current version of the presentation uses a single line for sections of the route that are simple tangent track. At locations with special work, the track layout is superimposed on this line. Yes, it’s a bit screwy, but all the switches face in the correct direction.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
I was always opposed to any subway extension going into the suburbs as I have always felt that overloading the lines with suburbanites limits the line’s usefulness for those who actually live on it, so I am still staunchly against any subway extension beyond TO’s borders. Unless 4 tracking, as in New York City, is built into the urban end of the route(s) I will likely retain this position. There has long been a planning position, that if those beyond the heavy portion line end have options to gain their destination, then all of those passengers will not overload it, they’ll disperse. So a DRL and or GO Transit option is a necessity.
I’ve read your previous comments on the extension of the Yonge line to Steeles and there appears that you have a lot of support for that idea. Except for the politico line drawers, there isn’t much I’ve read that says the Richmond Hill extension is really needed or wanted. After thinking about it, a Steeles extension should alleviate the undesirable conditions at the Finch bus terminal and slow end changing times at Finch terminal, I now concur too. This means though that the Steeles extension needs a well thought out, capital intensive terminal for the trains, buses and future suburban LRT.
A double crossover at the south end of the station is not the best idea for efficient turnaround times. Ideally a double track loop north of the subway station would be the best way of turning trains. Other special trackwork in concert with this type of layout would give as much flexibility as possible for a double track railroad.
This is if the Steeles end of the line is the only terminal. Of course the other possibility is to do also as you earlier suggested, that Steeles be the northerly of two terminals and that Finch remain as a second. With a Finch LRT in place, this is more than viable as an idea.
With either option I would suggest, again capital intensive, that a grade separated loop be installed north of Finch. Barring this as an option the centre track north of Finch must be capable of taking at least two trains at a time. Maybe the southerly one lengthened and double ended as the plan shows, but the other could be a pocket track, with a bit (say 200 feet) of extra track to allow trains to enter the pocket safely at a little faster rate of speed than if it is only a train’s length, thus allowing the line to clear more qickly. Even seconds saved here can make a big impact on the quality of the overall service.
With only every second train serving Steeles, we have spent buckets of money for LRT level service for only a mile, not the staggering extra buckets required to go all of the way to the ‘Hill”. We will have achieved much better turnaround times for all of the trains and hopefully the new transit node will be enjoyed as worthy of the ‘Border Country’.
For your mulling.
Dennis
Steve: I’m not sure if you are implying that I personally support the RH subway. My position is that it’s a ridiculous waste of money, but the inevitable result of decades when the TTC offered nothing but subways as “the solution”. People ask for what they know, and York has the political clout to get their lines on the map.
Having said that, I have to operate in the real world where lines we do not need get built, and we have to deal with the consequences. My aim in conducting this discussion is to ensure that everyone knows just what side effects overloading the Yonge line will have. Until I started this debate, the TTC staff were quite prepared to build the whole thing without even a thought to capacity impacts and alternatives. Staff are still pushing hard for the subway, to the point that I have to wonder who they think they are working for given the Commission’s stated position.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
I’ve always wondered, why can’t they just get cars that have more doors, wouldn’t that fix the loading/dwell issues at bloor?
Steve: The T-1 cars already have wider doors than the H cars they replaced. There is a limit to how many doors you can have before a car becomes mainly one for standees, and there are structural problems having many wide holes along the side of the car.
The issues with transfers between levels seems to be an easier thing to solve when you aren’t building extra platforms etc.
Also, regarding rush-hour demand, is it not possible to get cars that have less seats (or to remove them from current cars, and put in more bars/handles? I’d imagine this would be a quick fix to rush-hour usage patterns (as the trains without seats, or with extra doors could be swapped out during non rush-hour operation…), even cars that had “quick removing” or foldup chairs might be possible…
The benefits with these solutions is that they scale (ie. replace one car on a train at a time as needed).
Steve: The new TR cars will have folding seats that can be flipped up. This allows one fleet to behave in two different ways depending on demand.
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
No I’m not implying that you support the line all the way to the ‘Hill’. I know that you do not as I don’t! But I do know that you’ve said elsewhere on this site that you could support an extension to the ‘Border” at Steeles, something I was not in favour of until I digested some of the sage words of others, you included, on the topic. That’s what my comment was discussing, my change of heart.
In your comment to me, I too am in disbelief that the TTC staff actually, with eyes wide open, supports such a suburban boondoggle as looking to build subway into subberbia. Indeed who are they working for?, for it ain’t me, the city dweller. If that’s where they want to spend our finite resources, both capital and operational they’re at a minimum misguided and at worse;… well won’t go there! Mind, this is the same crew that, although they know better after years of proving it to themselves how awful the Scarberia RT is, very recently put together a report to support and expand the biggest boondoggle of them all, the “Shoulda been an LRT” ‘ICTS’. “ICTS” is synonomous with innappropriate technology, indeed, it shoulda, woulda, coulda been a showcase of LRT!!! It still can be guys and gals.
Steve, please keep apprising and reminding them of the foolishness of these continued courses of tomfoolery. Serve us first please TTC, we’re the ones who have continued to ride; even the olde grey mare of a 501 that ain’t what she used to be!
Dennis
LikeLike
Steve says:
“I’m not sure if you are implying that I personally support the RH subway. My position is that it’s a ridiculous waste of money, but the inevitable result of decades when the TTC offered nothing but subways as “the solution”. People ask for what they know, and York has the political clout to get their lines on the map.”
The 6.4 km 5 station Sheppard subway line costed a bit under $1.0 billion in 2004 (factor in inflation and that works out to $1.1 billion in 2008 dollars). Less than half of the projected cost of the 6.8 km 6 station $2.4 billion Yonge subway extension. http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html Huh,… did I miss something here? Why did the cost of building a 6-something km underground subway line all the sudden more than double within the last 4 years? Are they now paving the subway track with gold or something?
Steve says:
“Having said that, I have to operate in the real world where lines we do not need get built, and we have to deal with the consequences. My aim in conducting this discussion is to ensure that everyone knows just what side effects overloading the Yonge line will have. Until I started this debate, the TTC staff were quite prepared to build the whole thing without even a thought to capacity impacts and alternatives. Staff are still pushing hard for the subway, to the point that I have to wonder who they think they are working for given the Commission’s stated position.”
At the Yonge Subway Extension information session one of the fact they gave out was the number of buses using Yonge Street between Finch and Steeles during rush hour,… I can’t recall the exact number but it was something like 350-650 buses per hour! Anyways, if you’re ever up in that area and witness the number of buses using Yonge Street between Finch and Steeles during rush hours, you’ll know what they mean,.. it’s packed with rows and rows of buses! It surely justifies a Subway extension along Yonge from Finch to Steeles,…. as for a subway extension all the way to Richmond Hill,… that’s probably a different story.
As for your overloading issue,…. currently if you use the southbound Yonge subway during morning rush hour and get on at North York Centre or Sheppard, you probably won’t even get a seat,… it’s comes out of Finch quite full. If you try to get on this train between Davisville and Rosedale,… you’ll be lucky if you can actually get on, it’s already packed! Since the Yonge line is already operating at 100% full capacity,.. why does York Region continue to send their viva and YRT buses to Finch station??? Why doesn’t the TTC have some balls and tell York Region to send their viva and YRT buses down Dufferin to Downsview station (a very underutilized subway station that’s the size and style of an airport terminal with a large bus terminal) and use the University-Spadina subway line which is operating at 80% capacity??? Sure it means most of these people from York Region will have to ride the University-Spadina line down to Union and then back up Yonge to get off at King, Queen, Dundas, etc,… So what? These people from York region don’t pay municipal property tax that support the TTC! The people of Toronto pay much higher municipal property tax and one of the major reason is to finacially support the TTC!!! Of course it’s currently easy to identify the Toronto tax payers,… they’re the ones standing on the southbound Yonge subway while the York Region residents are sitting!
Seriously, can’t the TTC start charging a fee for York Region buses that uses Finch station?
Nick J Boragina Says:
“If the finch hydro corridor or the highway 407 corridor (both have plenty of space) is used, you could place a davisville-sized yard on north yonge without any problems. There’s no reason hydro lines cannot be moved underground as they are in europe. In Calgary, they even build highways in hydro corridors. I do not see hydro being a big problem.”
In the GTA, they too build highways in hydro corridors,… hwy 407!
Moving hydro lines underground will make them harder to service especially in the winter when the ground is frozen.
I attended a couple of those Yonge Subway extension to Richmond Hill information sessions and specifically asked if they considered placing subway yards at the finch hydro corridor or the hydro corridor along the 407. While those are good ideas,… the land owners (ie Toronto Hydro for the finch hydro corridor and Ontario Power Generation for the hydro corridor along the 407) are both dead against it. Could you imagine a terrorist derailing a subway train into one of their hydro tower and knocking it down and thus cutting power to a large section of Ontario and the US?
Ontario Power Generation had agreed to a Parking Lot at the hydro corridor south of the 407 and west of Yonge,… and that took a lot of political arm twisting!
George Bell Says:
“I’ve always wondered, why can’t they just get cars that have more doors, wouldn’t that fix the loading/dwell issues at bloor?”
The new subway trains arriving in 2009 will have wide doors, be the equivalent of a 7 car train (longer than current 6 cars and thus have 4 more sets of doors and higher capacity) and since new subway will be able to stop on a dime,… with this stopping precision TTC is looking at adding enclosed barriers with doors on platform. IE: once subway comes to a stop, two sets of doors will open,… one door for enclosed barrier of platform and another door for subway. Since passengers on plateform will see doors of enclosed barrier on platform they’ll know exactly where subway doors will open and thus can position themselves accordingly while waiting for train,… instead of the current method where passenger on plateform must wait for train to come to full stop then figure out which door is closer and walking to it before boarding. The enclosed barriers with doors on platform will help reduce those unspecified subway delays,…. suicidal subway jumpers.
Hey Steve, since new subway trains are coming soon,… before TTC install these platform barriers with doors,… maybe you could suggest they paint door signs on floor of platform so people will know exactly where doors should be when new trains stop.
LikeLike
Steve, given that this study was initiated and is driven by York Region, I gather the TTC felt they couldn’t just sit back and let York Region mess around with the subway. I know we have lots to complain about the TTC, but they are after all the only jurisdiction in the GTA with the expertise and experience in subway planning. It’s telling that the first PCC of the study was in June yet the TTC and the City were not proponents until October. Seems to me that the TTC is less enthusiastic about extending the Yonge line than you would give them credit for.
Steve: The TTC and the City may be less than enthusiastic, but TTC staff are quite another matter.
LikeLike
The idea that something magical happens at Steeles whereby urban life halts, and suburban life begins, is very difficult to understand. In the real world, it don’t work that way. Quite the opposite.
LikeLike
Raymond Jean wrote, “maybe you could suggest they paint door signs on floor of platform so people will know exactly where doors should be when new trains stop”
Do you mean like this: http://lrt.daxack.ca/Denver/hires01.jpg
Of course, this is a photo at one of RTD’s LRT stations in Denver. They do this even without ATC!
Steve: I have a big problem with platform doors for two reasons. First, this will require the complete elimination of T-1 operation on the YUS before it is practical as the door spacing for a 6-car T-1 train is almost certainly not the same as the spacing for the proposed 7-car TR train.
Second, the TTC has a long and sad history of being able to maintain anything that moves unless they have a 20% spare ratio. Unlike subway cars, platform doors (and escalators and elevators) cannot be taken back to the shop. What do we do when, inevitably, they don’t work?
(This is written within hours of watching TTC crews clearing snowdrifts from doorways on SRT cars using hockey sticks.)
LikeLike
Hi Steve:-
I always said that the powers that be dropped the ball when they built the SRT. I guess I should have said dropped the puck, eh?
Dennis
LikeLike
Calvin Henry-Cotnam Says:
” Raymond Jean wrote, “maybe you could suggest they paint door signs on floor of platform so people will know exactly where doors should be when new trains stop”
“Do you mean like this: http://lrt.daxack.ca/Denver/hires01.jpg Of course, this is a photo at one of RTD’s LRT stations in Denver. They do this even without ATC!”
Oh,… just when I thought I invented the next best thing since sliced bread! 🙂 Yes, that’s exactly what I mean,.. except maybe the white door sign should be a longer to match the width of the doors,.. after all since the ATC will allow the subway to stop on a dime, it’ll be quite interesting to observe how perfectly it lines up each time the subway stops. (Yes, I really do need a life!)
Steve says:
“I have a big problem with platform doors for two reasons. First, this will require the complete elimination of T-1 operation on the YUS before it is practical as the door spacing for a 6-car T-1 train is almost certainly not the same as the spacing for the proposed 7-car TR train.”
Well,… I’m sure the current 6-car T-1 train on the YUS line will go where all subway trains go to die,… to the Bloor Danforth line. The Bloor Danforth line still has subway trains with those huge foam bubble seats from the 60’s and 70’s which needs to be replaced.
Steve: If you read my fleet analysis carefully, you will see that the TTC has more than enough cars to operate the BD and Sheppard lines with the T-1 fleet with many left over. The H series cars to which you refer will be retired as T-1s move over from YUS to BD as the TR cars arrive. They will still have cars left over.
“Second, the TTC has a long and sad history of being able to maintain anything that moves unless they have a 20% spare ratio. Unlike subway cars, platform doors (and escalators and elevators) cannot be taken back to the shop. What do we do when, inevitably, they don’t work?”
Well,… they work well on a number of subway systems throughout the world. How well they work in the Canadian winter on an icy day at an outdoor subway platform,… remains to be seen. I’m sure these platform doors will have some type of emergency and manual override system for TTC employees.
Steve: The problem is not an emergency override for TTC employees, but what happens when trains pull into stations and the outer doors don’t work? Ice and snow will be huge problems. On the RT, we regularly get snow inside, yes, inside the cars and small drifts build up in the doorways. These freeze and jam the doors.
One of the major problem with the Yonge line is that it goes down about once a week,… sadly, often because somebody decides to slam dance into the front of a subway train coming into a station. Then there are people who accidentally fall onto the track,.. or those who are pushed. Hopefully these enclosed platform with doors will be much more beneficial for everyone and make the Yonge subway line more reliable.
Steve: Don’t count on it. There are far more delays from passenger illness and equipment failures. I believe the platform doors are a red herring.
“(This is written within hours of watching TTC crews clearing snowdrifts from doorways on SRT cars using hockey sticks.)”
Next time toss them a puck,… 🙂
LikeLike
[The following comment has been edited to remove repeated references to the former Finance Minister of Ontario. Although some may feel he had undue influence in the choice of projects to be funded, the issue here is to talk about what is being or might be built, not to substitute personal attacks for fair comment.]
Disparishun Says:
“The idea that something magical happens at Steeles whereby urban life halts, and suburban life begins, is very difficult to understand. In the real world, it don’t work that way. Quite the opposite.”
Actually, there really is something magical that happens at Steeles! South of Steeles, residents of the city of Toronto pay high municipal property taxes that finacially supports infrastructures like the TTC. North of Steeles, residents of York Region (ie Vaughan, Woodbridge, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Markham, etc,..) pay low municipal property taxes that DO NOT finacially supports the TTC!
In the real world,…. money talks and BS walks. Right now York Region’s Yonge Subway extension all the way to Richmond Hill is,… nothing but pure BS!
In the past for the total cost of subway projects the funding has always been broken down into equal parts between the city of Toronto, the province of Ontario and the Federal government. Each paying a third of the project. With this Yonge subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill, York Region doesn’t want to contribute anything! Not one single penny! York Region wants all $2.4 Billion cost of this project to come from the province of Ontario and the Federal government. If York Region wants a subway system in York Region then they should first raise their municipal property taxes to fund part of it and then hope the province and feds come in with their financial support.
Steve: Actually, the feds rarely contributed anything to transit projects, certainly not on any ongoing basis. The VCC subway is the first time they came through in a big way in Toronto. Other cities have fared better, but usually for flagrantly political reasons.
… [snip] …
NOTE: The $2.63 billion for the 8.6 km ($305.8 million per kilometre!) 6 station […] Spadina subway extension can easily fund these 4 out of 7 LRT Transit City projects:
– Don Mills: $675 million for 17.6 km, or $38.4 million per kilometre
– Etobicoke-Finch West: $835 million for 17.9 km, or $46.7 million per kilometre
– Sheppard East: $555 million for 13.6 km, or $40.8 million per kilometre
– Waterfront West: $540 million for 11.0 km, or $49.1 million per kilometre
Total: $2.605 Billion for 60.1 km, or $43.3 million per kilometre
http://lrt.daxack.ca/LRTvsHRT/CostCompare.html
Does it surprise anyone that Metrolinx (formed by the government of Ontario) can’t stop the $2.63 Billion Spadina subway extension. If the TTC can’t see the feasibility of a $2.4 Billion 6 station Yonge subway extension from Finch to Richmond Hill Centre (Hwy 7 & Yonge) and would prefer an LRT route there,…. how can the $2.63 Billion 6 station Spadina subway extension from Downsview to […] Vaughan Corporate Centre (Hwy 7 & Jane) be feasible??? Oh, that’s right the Spadina subway extension already has funding in place,… from levels of government outside of the GTA. Well, folks,… it’s always great to see our taxpayer money spent so wisely. And people actually wonder why Canadians are the most heavily taxed.
LikeLike
Well the VCC extension is a done deal, is it not? I do symathise with Raymond Jean about that extension I don’t see what can be done about it barring a change of government in Queen’s Park and/or Ottawa. As I’ve said before I have no desire whatsoever to see this extension derailed, just truncated at Steeles.
LikeLike
Raymond Jean wrote, “South of Steeles, residents of the city of Toronto pay high municipal property taxes that finacially supports infrastructures like the TTC. North of Steeles, residents of York Region (ie Vaughan, Woodbridge, Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Markham, etc,..) pay low municipal property taxes that DO NOT finacially supports the TTC!”
The only thing correct here is the point about who’s taxes support the TTC. A little homework about who is paying more municipal taxes, on a mill rate basis (I won’t quote numbers here, but in the GTA, Toronto has the lowest, Oshawa the highest, and the municipalities just north of Steeles are in the middle).
That said, Raymond is correct in saying that York Region should be paying for something if it feels it is necessary. This project is nothing but a “I want one too” item in a toy store window for some politicians who could care less about looking at options that are more suitable to York Region that could actually serve more people more effectively for the same money or less.
LikeLike