[44 North]

Now, that bike path, the Leaside Spur, is actually land owned by Metrolinx and the city has a temporary provision to use it as a bike path. At any point Metrolinx could revoke that permission and build a rail line in their. However, the question is, would they?

As you can imagine, the NIMBYISM would be out of control. That spur goes through a quiet neighbourhood of houses abutting the spur line.

I think it's owned by the City. And we may be overestimating the level of Nimbyism. Sure there would be an uproar just as there is with any project, but it's a fairly wide corridor (30-40m) and it's only really the ROW that's important. In other words any new rail infrastructure could be below grade through the problematic parts. Roughly this would entail a 1.6km trench + cut/cover section between Overland and Bond. Even with no Nimbys such a thing would likely be proposed regardless since it allows a grade-separation at Lawrence. The result may be similar to what was built in Weston with UPX.

 

[hw621]

If they were to run EMUs on the RH line, it might be a go with the community.

they can't electrify the line before flooding prevention.

 

[hw621]

what is the cost of flooding prevention + electrification of RH vs. the whole DRL long?

 

[Leo_Chan]

what is the cost of flooding prevention + electrification of RH vs. the whole DRL long?

The Relief Line South should be built either way. A proper comparison is Relief Line North and RH Line 2WAD vs Don Mills LRT and RH Line RER.

 

[44 North]

The Relief Line South should be built either way. A proper comparison is Relief Line North and RH Line 2WAD vs RH Line RER.

Kinda a stupid comparison. After Crosstown and RL the Don Mills LRT had the highest ridership of any rapid transit project. I can get saying whether RLN should be LRT or subway. But The demand for a rapid transit corridor along Don Mills is there today, and comparing it either/or to a commuter train a couple km away is kinda useless. Both are good projects but obviously serve different purposes.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

what is the cost of flooding prevention + electrification of RH vs. the whole DRL long?

I don’t even know if flood protecting the RH Line is worth it. The ridership on GO RH is totally pathetic. Just 10,000 people per day in 2016. That’s less ridership than the TTC has on minor bus routes like Midland, Birdhmount and Royal York. I can’t justify spending an much money to help so few people.

 

[pman]

I don’t even know if flood protecting the RH Line is worth it. The ridership on GO RH is totally pathetic. Just 10,000 people per day in 2016. That’s less ridership than the TTC has on minor bus routes like Midland, Birdhmount and Royal York. I can’t justify spending an much money to help so few people.

Uh...sure...transit investments should be based on a rational, data-driven assessment of demand versus cost. But we’re talking about Toronto here.

 

[hw621]

I don’t even know if flood protecting the RH Line is worth it. The ridership on GO RH is totally pathetic. Just 10,000 people per day in 2016. That’s less ridership than the TTC has on minor bus routes like Midland, Birdhmount and Royal York. I can’t justify spending an much money to help so few people.

Part of the low ridership might be due to that riders flooding the cheaper, more frequent Yonge Line? If GO fare comes down and there is more frequent services, more riders now using Yonge Line will be willing to switch?

 

[robmausser]

I don’t even know if flood protecting the RH Line is worth it. The ridership on GO RH is totally pathetic. Just 10,000 people per day in 2016. That’s less ridership than the TTC has on minor bus routes like Midland, Birdhmount and Royal York. I can’t justify spending an much money to help so few people.

The problem is that you can't just look at existing ridership of transit and say "ok this line isn't worth it".

There could be something wrong with the setup as it stands that is causing low ridership.

So you must look at the system as a whole to understand if ridership is low simply due to demand, or there are other factors that are causing the low ridership, such as fare cost, station location, schedules, train speed, reliability, operating hours. etc.

 

[robmausser]

what is the cost of flooding prevention + electrification of RH vs. the whole DRL long?

flood prevention is a 1.2 billion job but that includes other works within the don valley area. So lets say 500 million is directly attributed to RH line.

Electrification is a 500 million job.

DRL Long is estimated at 6 to 8 billion dollars.

Subways are expensive.

 

[robmausser]

they can't electrify the line before flooding prevention.

I think they were referring to the Leaside community, aka running the trains through the Leaside Spur, which then would avoid the flooded line, as it would go onto the Don Branch line.

 

[robmausser]

I think it's owned by the City. And we may be overestimating the level of Nimbyism. Sure there would be an uproar just as there is with any project, but it's a fairly wide corridor (30-40m) and it's only really the ROW that's important. In other words any new rail infrastructure could be below grade through the problematic parts. Roughly this would entail a 1.6km trench + cut/cover section between Overland and Bond. Even with no Nimbys such a thing would likely be proposed regardless since it allows a grade-separation at Lawrence. The result may be similar to what was built in Weston with UPX.

Its owned by Metrolinx and the province.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2000/agendas/council/cc/cc001003/adm19rpt/cl015.pdf

“It is further recommended that the City endorse the principle of entering into a permanent agreement with GO Transit (if it purchases the spur line) to use the property for parks purposes, including but not limited to a trail system, even if the land is actively used by GO Transit for trains.”)

The city has an agreement with GO (now Metrolinx) to use the spur for parkland. However that does not prevent GO from using it for trains.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Part of the low ridership might be due to that riders flooding the cheaper, more frequent Yonge Line? If GO fare comes down and there is more frequent services, more riders now using Yonge Line will be willing to switch?

Conversely, when the Yonge Line is extended north, won’t that further deteriorate RH Line ridership?

 

[hw621]

Conversely, when the Yonge Line is extended north, won’t that further deteriorate RH Line ridership?

Not sure. RH has fewer stops so it may work as an express to Union, if fares do come down.

 

[smallspy]

Part of the low ridership might be due to that riders flooding the cheaper, more frequent Yonge Line? If GO fare comes down and there is more frequent services, more riders now using Yonge Line will be willing to switch?

The reason is that the Yonge Subway goes to more places that people want to go to - Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor - than the GO train does.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.