BurlOak said:
Looking at the attachment from Munro for the Yonge alignment - it is a bit hard to read the numbers, but it appears that the new South Bound Yonge tracks could go above the B-D.
Could Yonge be raised a couple of feet, if needed, to accomplish this?
Could passenger flow be accommodated under this line instead of above?
I tend to agree that likely what is being proposed is not enough, or possibly nothing should be done and the money spend on a DRL2 - maybe Avenue Road and Bay Street to join the Waterfront LRT's.
Click to expand...

Sigh, there will not be any new passing tracks on Line 1. Zero, Nada, Squat.
 
Northern Light said:
Sigh, there will not be any new passing tracks on Line 1. Zero, Nada, Squat.
Click to expand...
I don't think this counted as a passing track - it was just separating the NB and SB tracks by some distance. Still only 2 Yonge tracks.
And Not so sure something else won't be done. This city plan is bound to be scrapped when the province takes over.
 
BurlOak said:
I don't think this counted as a passing track - it was just separating the NB and SB tracks by some distance. Still only 2 Yonge tracks.
And Not so sure something else won't be done. This city plan is bound to be scrapped when the province takes over.
Click to expand...

No it's not. The Spanish Solution was ruled out as it required closure of the station for an extended period.

Please stop making statements for which you have no evidence or expertise.
 
Northern Light said:
Yes. The TTC's plans for the next generation of Line 1 rolling stock call for a smaller 7th car. Adding that is dependent on ATC and likely PED being in place.
Click to expand...
I can see why ATC is a precursor to having longer trains. (though I don't see why the next generation of trains would have a single shorter car, rather than making all 7 or 8 or 9 cars a bit shorter)

Why are PEDs a precursor to using the entire platform. Montreal train platforms are the same length as Toronto, but use 9 car trains that take up the full length without platform doors.

Northern Light said:
The older by-pass proposal and Spanish Solution proposal were ruled out a long time ago.
Click to expand...
The entire project was ruled out (and in and about) previously. Now the second platform for Line 2 is currently in again (I'm sure there'll be iterations!). It's certainly cheaper than a bypass tunnel (presumably with 2 new platforms) or a third middle platform. (Do any TTC/city documents use the term "spanish solution" ... always seems like a fantasy thing to me).

I wouldn't be surprised if a completely new tunnel for one of the Line 1 tracks surfaces again one day. While costly, it has the advantage of not requiring an extensive closure. I don't recall much complaints when the new tunnel was added south of Sheppard West (Downsview) station ... I don't think most people even realised it was going on ... and I don't recall any closures longer than a weekend.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
With great respect, you haven't read the discussion here.

As noted, The Relief Line AND this project are both required.

It is not an either/or proposition.

No one believes this project is an alternative to the RL.

But nor does the RL draw away enough people to make Y-B function safely, never mind efficiently.

That's before contemplating the Yonge-North expansion.

That's also before contemplating any further growth of the Toronto or the GTA beyond what's already approved.
Click to expand...

My apologies if the material has been discussed before, but the discussion did not take part in this thread. My opinion is that the money spent on this (which will be substantial and will drag on over many years) could be better used expediting other projects.

According to Metrolinx's Yonge Relief Network Study, having a full DRL to Sheppard has a very substantial impact on Line 1 ridership and Yonge-Bloor transfer volumes, and would shave about a third (11 600 pphpd) off of downtown-bound Yonge volume and a quarter from downtown bound BD volume (7 100 pphpd). This would appear to allow ample room for the Yonge North subway extension.

179806


According to the Yonge subway extension recommendations, the additional ridership due to the extension in 2031 would be 8 400, less than the drop due to the DRL. This study didn't consider the prospect of an attractive RER network siphoning off long-distance ridership.

Note that most of this ridership would likely be continuing on downtown, not transferring at Yonge/Bloor, so as long as the DRL continues to offer a more efficient ride into downtown the transfer situation will not be considerably worse.

There are other capacity mitigations that offer better value for money that can be deployed instead of rebuilding our very constrained key transfer station:
  • Implementing RER on the Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie lines, which are more suited to long-distance travel and run parallel to the Yonge line.
  • Continuing to extend the DRL north of Sheppard to intercept traffic destined to the Yonge North extension
  • Extending the DRL west and north to intercept BD to Yonge transfer traffic
  • Implementing Platform Screen Doors, as a safety and reliability improvement
In general, we should aim to spend on improving the resilience of the network by offering attractive alternative routes, rather than putting all of our eggs in the line 1 basket in rebuilding our 1950s-era stations.
 
nfitz said:
I can see why ATC is a precursor to having longer trains (though I don't see why the next generation of trains would have a single shorter car, rather than making all 7 (or 8 or 9) cars a bit shorter.
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible. The last configuration option developed by the TTC showed the single, shorter car........but that was nothing other than conceptual and I believe contemplated a possible re-fit of the existing trains.

The next generation rolling stock is not yet in conceptual design; so adjusting car lengths may be way to go; I'm uncertain.

Why are PEDs a precursor to using the entire platform. Montreal train platforms are the same length as Toronto, but used 9 car trains that take up the full length without platform doors
Click to expand...

I don't believe PEDs are a prerequisite to longer trains per se. Rather than the TTC envisions PEDs as necessary/useful for other reasons, including how passengers queue on busy platforms. As such, these will likely go ahead prior to the TTC moving ahead w/longer trains.

The entire project was ruled out (and in and about) previously. Now the second platform for Line 2 is currently in again (I'm sure there'll be iterations!). It's certainly cheaper than a bypass tunnel (presumably with 2 new platforms) or a third middle platform. (Do any TTC/city documents use the term "spanish solution" ... always seems like a fantasy thing to me).
Click to expand...

I can't recall if term was used in the original TTC report on capacity expansion at Y-B that considered just that (board from one side, exit from the other set of doors) ; but that was formally contemplated, before the complexity, cost and closure requirements ruled it out.

The closure in that case, was based on the need to cut back the existing line 1 platforms, which would then allow the tracks to be re-aligned to the west and east respectively for the Southbound and Northbound tracks, in order to create the room for a new centre platform.

I wouldn't be surprised if a completely new tunnel for one of the Line 1 tracks surfaces again one day. While costly, it has the advantage of not requiring an extensive closure.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, but that strikes me as highly improbable even 40 years out.

A look at the drawings posted show a bypass running under Yonge itself. But careful examination will show it involves shifting the entire centre platform on Line 2 further west. (currently under Cumberland Terrace)

This is needed in order to create 2 connections from said platform to the new one above for Yonge.

Not only is this not being contemplated as part of this proposal, nor as part of the redevelopment proposals for said site; but the new Line 2 platform is actually sited further east, making it even harder to achieve a by-pass on a horizontal plane.

Going under is also not really feasible, because there simply isn't the space on the existing platforms for Line 2 to accommodate any additional vertical access connections.
 
aquateam said:
My apologies if the material has been discussed before, but the discussion did not take part in this thread. My opinion is that the money spent on this (which will be substantial and will drag on over many years) could be better used expediting other projects.

According to Metrolinx's Yonge Relief Network Study, having a full DRL to Sheppard has a very substantial impact on Line 1 ridership and Yonge-Bloor transfer volumes, and would shave about a third (11 600 pphpd) off of downtown-bound Yonge volume and a quarter from downtown bound BD volume (7 100 pphpd). This would appear to allow ample room for the Yonge North subway extension.

View attachment 179806

According to the Yonge subway extension recommendations, the additional ridership due to the extension in 2031 would be 8 400, less than the drop due to the DRL. This study didn't consider the prospect of an attractive RER network siphoning off long-distance ridership.

Note that most of this ridership would likely be continuing on downtown, not transferring at Yonge/Bloor, so as long as the DRL continues to offer a more efficient ride into downtown the transfer situation will not be considerably worse.

There are other capacity mitigations that offer better value for money that can be deployed instead of rebuilding our very constrained key transfer station:
  • Implementing RER on the Stouffville, Richmond Hill and Barrie lines, which are more suited to long-distance travel and run parallel to the Yonge line.
  • Continuing to extend the DRL north of Sheppard to intercept traffic destined to the Yonge North extension
  • Extending the DRL west and north to intercept BD to Yonge transfer traffic
  • Implementing Platform Screen Doors, as a safety and reliability improvement
In general, we should aim to spend on improving the resilience of the network by offering attractive alternative routes, rather than putting all of our eggs in the line 1 basket in rebuilding our 1950s-era stations.
Click to expand...

A couple of critical issues here.

The first is that the TTC believes it needs the additional capacity no later than 2028 (arguably yesterday would have been better).

There is no possibility, to my mind, that the Relief Line long will be ready in that time frame or even close.

The second, is that those projections have been revised.

The reduction (diversion) estimates are fine.........but the problem is the Line 1 base line is now higher, the Line 2 baseline is now higher, and local ridership (those boarding directly at Y-B are now higher)

This is a function of higher than anticipated population and jobs growth, both for the City as a whole and downtown in particular.

Keep in mind, the critical issue at Y-B isn't incoming traffic down Line 2 (though that does matter some) its traffic from Line 2 to Line 1 and vice versa, as well as those entering/exiting the subway at this station.
 
Something that just occurred to me is how crowded will Queen Station get once the Relief Line is built?..
 
If the new platform isn’t as long as regular platforms people will be crowded onto the middle carriages when transferring to Line 2 Eastbound.
 
Northern Light said:
No work that I'm yet aware of on expanding capacity in any other way at King, Dundas or College.
Click to expand...

It would have been perfect to design an exit into YSL for Dundas. I read it that it might happen when the project was just proposed but obviously that won't happen now. :(
 
reteequa said:
It would have been perfect to design an exit into YSL for Dundas. I read it that it might happen when the project was just proposed but obviously that won't happen now. :(
Click to expand...

Too far away. Ryerson's site at Gould was plausible, but it will eventually happen for both platforms, likely at the 335 site, one day (east side of Yonge, S. side of Gould and at a development on Yonge, N. of Edward.

In a report to the TTC out just this afternoon, Dundas is identified at one of the stations in need of a second exit/expansion.


 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Speaking of the above report.... on Yonge (Line 1) capacity expansion....


Stations identified in the report as priorities for additional exits and/or capacity expansion include:

Implement station enhancements (additional vertical circulation elements, second exits) at priority stations (e.g. King, Dundas, College, St George, St Andrew and Queen’s Park
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top