[TheTigerMaster]

... it mentions the relief line only going to York Mills .... we know from there infographics it shows them possibly building it in phases, and this would point to the first time we've heard of a firm terminus. That likely points to a Victoria Park Alignment - either by Connor or Ovelea/Thorncliffe to avoid the shepphard extension discussion. It could also point to the next round of consulations starting soon.

Wouldn't read too much into it. Could be a typo

 

[Kitsune]

I would appreciate it if you can provide the source (including link) for this statement. Thank you.

It was stated in a consultation meeting in April.

 

[11th]

In regards to earlier pages discussion about the long-term viability of the Richmond Hill GO line, I wanted to point out this table in recent GO expansion business case.

View attachment 165812

Look at Richmond Hill line. It has abysmally poor ridership levels, even after planning service upgrades. Contrast this with the growth potential of every other line aside from Milton (which has its own problems prohibiting upgrades). The business case itself even mentions the same points I made about the long-term poor case for upgrade:

View attachment 165816

Why not look at replacing this service with an extension of the Relief Line?

From the table, it looks like the biggest factor working against Milton and RH line ridership, in comparison to other lines, is no off-peak, weekend, contra-peak service upgrades.

 

[micheal_can]

My thought was that it would imply they are going for a modified Option 3, and that the DRL alignment would meet the Richmond Hill line near York Mills Road. Surely no option would not have a terminus at York Mills Road.

View attachment 165821

I am guessing that phase 2 will be to Eglinton. I m guessing once they decide a route to there, then we will know more about it's final route to RH area.

 

[aquateam]

The reason I'm assuming a VP alignment is because it was stated that early modelling was showing a VP alignment through Option L had the highest ridership... but that more indepth modelling was required.

Ridership studies don't seem to have much influence on the alignment, as we saw with the DRL south.

Option 5 is my favourite.

• It goes further east so there is less coverage overlap with the Yonge line (and it intercepts buses earlier)
• More TOD potential along the Victoria Park. Don Mills is the traditional alignment but that goes through along a golf course and ravine, and is a bit close to the 404.
• Facilitates Sheppard being extended to the other side of the 404, which would be a less awkward transfer point to BRT or LRT (the LRT plan had it buried through that segment, anyway, so if we're going to tunnel it might as well be to extend the existing subway.)
• Parts of it would technically be in Scarborough, which seems to be a political requirement for any subway.
• For those who want to see the Richmond Hill GO line upgraded to something more useful, a Victoria Park alignment 1) could still allow the GO line to be used as a branch of the DRL where they intersect 2) wouldn't duplicate the existing GO alignment between Lawrence and Steeles

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

From the table, it looks like the biggest factor working against Milton and RH line ridership, in comparison to other lines, is no off-peak, weekend, contra-peak service upgrades.

Sure. (Though in RH it is likely also the complete lack of connectivity to the TTC rapid transit network)

Milton is easily solvable with the missing link, which I am going to make an opinion to say that it should be done anyway (and for reasons beyond just upgrading the Milton line), even withstanding the cost.

Richmond Hill on the other hand, is very costly to re-align. The business case for it is very poor, as is stated by Metrolinx themselves. It begs the question, why and for what gain? Does investing in another competing service make for a better business case, and for better transit connectivity, frequency, and service for the end-user?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

• More TOD potential along the Victoria Park. Don Mills is the traditional alignment but that goes through along a golf course and ravine, and is a bit close to the 404.

I am not sure that I agree with that assessment. Lawrence and Don Mills is a major node, as is Sheppard and Don Mills.

Only York Mills & Don Mills is not an ideal station location due to the ravine, yet, significant amount of employment lands are still within a 600m radius of that station location. In any case, the primary purpose of that station is always going to be to intercept the York Mills/Ellesmere bus.

If extended to Finch, once again, Don Mills easily wins out due to high density residential towers nearby, and Seneca College.

• For those who want to see the Richmond Hill GO line upgraded to something more useful, a Victoria Park alignment 1) could still allow the GO line to be used as a branch of the DRL where they intersect 2) wouldn't duplicate the existing GO alignment between Lawrence and Steeles

This idea of branching is very interesting.

The idea just occurred to me to send one branch up Don Mills, and a second branch using the "Option 5" but sending it along the Midtown corridor all the way to Scarborough Town Centre, and scrapping the SSE plan.

 

[asher__jo]

Ridership studies don't seem to have much influence on the alignment, as we saw with the DRL south.

I would have to disagree with that statement. The alignment that was chosen that dips into the lower don lands is a huge redevelopment site that will bring very high ridership, and the relief line south is projected to have higher ridership than line 4.

 

[asher__jo]

I am not sure that I agree with that assessment. Lawrence and Don Mills is a major node, as is Sheppard and Don Mills.

Second that. There is huge potential for massive intensification at those areas, and is already some density there. Victoria park does also have quite a bit of medium level density, however I think the upzoning potential is lower.

 

[micheal_can]

Sure. (Though in RH it is likely also the complete lack of connectivity to the TTC rapid transit network)

Milton is easily solvable with the missing link, which I am going to make an opinion to say that it should be done anyway (and for reasons beyond just upgrading the Milton line), even withstanding the cost.

Richmond Hill on the other hand, is very costly to re-align. The business case for it is very poor, as is stated by Metrolinx themselves. It begs the question, why and for what gain? Does investing in another competing service make for a better business case, and for better transit connectivity, frequency, and service for the end-user?

Let's say the RH line stays GO and not turned into a subway DRL.

Maybe the realignment means new stations. Maybe it means more frequency. However you look at it, getting rid of the GO lines is not a good start. Adding more would be a good thing. Having an express way to downtown is a good thing. All that really needs to be done is fare integration.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Let's say the RH line stays GO and not turned into a subway DRL.

Maybe the realignment means new stations. Maybe it means more frequency. However you look at it, getting rid of the GO lines is not a good start. Adding more would be a good thing. Having an express way to downtown is a good thing. All that really needs to be done is fare integration.

It's a democracy. If people want to pay for an express way to downtown, then the RH line might be able to serve that purpose successfully. We actually have a comparable service on the west end, it is the Union-Pearson Express. (Which ironically for an airport-union express service, has substantially better connectivity than RH line does).

However, from not a popular-demand lens, but from a purely cost-benefit perspective, the RH line is difficult to justify in its current state, and it is even harder to justify as an investment to construct a new alignment, upgrade and electrify, and to build new and relocate existing stations.

I also suggest looking at these mass transit services holistically. I understand that removing a GO rail service from operation sounds blasphemous. But, if the current service doesn't really make much sense, has little potential for growth, and upgrading the service is a prohibitive exercise, then looking to take advantage of that available corridor for another form of mass transit should not be overlooked.

 

[aquateam]

I would have to disagree with that statement. The alignment that was chosen that dips into the lower don lands is a huge redevelopment site that will bring very high ridership, and the relief line south is projected to have higher ridership than line 4.

But that wasn't the initially chosen alignment, and that isn't the highest ridership corridor. The originally chosen alignment was "B1 - Pape Queen", which didn't dip down to the Donlands and was one of the lowest ridership options reviewed. It changed to "B2 - Pape Queen via Unilever" due to development pressure in May 2016. And that isn't even the highest ridership corridor, the most ridership was "D2 -Pape King via Unilever".

The initial preferred option was one of the lowest ridership corridors, with 40% less ridership than the highest ridership corridor. So we can't say that ridership is a determining basis for picking an alignment.

Metrolinx seems to be more quantitative with their BCAs, so maybe ridership will have a stronger role for DRL North than the City Planning department-led process for DRL south.

I'm not disputing that the DRL will have much higher ridership than line 4.

I am not sure that I agree with that assessment. Lawrence and Don Mills is a major node, as is Sheppard and Don Mills.

Only York Mills & Don Mills is not an ideal station location due to the ravine, yet, significant amount of employment lands are still within a 600m radius of that station location. In any case, the primary purpose of that station is always going to be to intercept the York Mills/Ellesmere bus.

If extended to Finch, once again, Don Mills easily wins out due to high density residential towers nearby, and Seneca College.

I meant more in terms of available land, but I think you're right about zoning and land use on Don Mills being more favourable.

I also notice that Don Mills is almost exactly equidistant from the Stouffville line and Yonge line (5 km), which a good thing in terms of spacing out North/South rapid transit coverage.

 

[jaybe]

It was stated in a consultation meeting in April.

I was in the April consultation meetings also and I don't recall hearing about studies of ridership estimates for the proposed routes. The meetings were to assess potential routes and studies would follow.

Feedback I offered in the meetings were the maps that outlinehd the route options show a bias towards the Vic Park alignment (Option 5-6) by ignoring the Smart Track route that will be 3.3km east of Vic Park. The goal of the DRL is to off-load Yonge. Place it too far east and many potential riders will continue to use the Yonge Subway. Further, potential DRL subway riders that are commuting to downtown jobs may be better served by Smart Track. The alignment map should be expanded to show transit routes east of Vic Park.

 

[BurlOak]

But that wasn't the initially chosen alignment, and that isn't the highest ridership corridor. The originally chosen alignment was "B1 - Pape Queen", which didn't dip down to the Donlands and was one of the lowest ridership options reviewed. It changed to "B2 - Pape Queen via Unilever" due to development pressure in May 2016. And that isn't even the highest ridership corridor, the most ridership was "D2 -Pape King via Unilever".

View attachment 165951

The initial preferred option was one of the lowest ridership corridors, with 40% less ridership than the highest ridership corridor. So we can't say that ridership is a determining basis for picking an alignment.

Metrolinx seems to be more quantitative with their BCAs, so maybe ridership will have a stronger role for DRL North than the City Planning department-led process for DRL south.

I'm not disputing that the DRL will have much higher ridership than line 4.



I meant more in terms of available land, but I think you're right about zoning and land use on Don Mills being more favourable.

I also notice that Don Mills is almost exactly equidistant from the Stouffville line and Yonge line (5 km), which a good thing in terms of spacing out North/South rapid transit coverage.

I'm not clear.
B2 was the plan before the switch to be partially under Carlaw. Did the switch change the ridership numbers in any way?

I guess B2 was the highest ridership that satisfied that additional Keesmaat criteria that it had to go to City Hall.

 

[asher__jo]

ut that wasn't the initially chosen alignment, and that isn't the highest ridership corridor. The originally chosen alignment was "B1 - Pape Queen", which didn't dip down to the Donlands and was one of the lowest ridership options reviewed. It changed to "B2 - Pape Queen via Unilever" due to development pressure in May 2016. And that isn't even the highest ridership corridor, the most ridership was "D2 -Pape King via Unilever".

I see your point. Ridership is definitely a factor in determining alignment, but not the only factor. I do think that the subway route down Queen strikes the balance of being slightly more midway between the waterfront and Bloor vs the King route.