[44 North]

Providing decent GO service on the Richmond Hill line would genuinely cost more money than the Yonge North extension, even then whether or not it would be more valuable than the subway is seriously up in the air.

Over six billion? That can't be right. A couple rail/rail grade separations and general rail upgrades doesn't equal that much.

 

[ARG1]

Over six billion? That can't be right. A couple rail/rail grade separations and general rail upgrades doesn't equal that much.

Doncaster Diamond + Floodproofing the Don Valley section (which will cost a ton of money) + building some interchange stations (good luck getting an interchange with Line 2 that is anywhere close to decent - without it RER service is kind of pointless) + acquiring a ton of trackage from CN, etc..

Perhaps it won't be more expensive, but it won't cost much cheaper, and it would be a lot worse in terms of value for money because you still have to deal with a horrible and slow alignment and a line that basically avoids every major development center that you can connect to. The only thing the Richmond Hill Line will ever be useful for is being an express service to downtown, it would be an absolutely horrible RER route.

 

[nfitz]

Doncaster Diamond + Floodproofing the Don Valley section (which will cost a ton of money) + building some interchange stations (good luck getting an interchange with Line 2 that is anywhere close to decent - without it RER service is kind of pointless) + acquiring a ton of trackage from CN, etc..

Perhaps it won't be more expensive, but it won't cost much cheaper, and it would be a lot worse in terms of value for money because you still have to deal with a horrible and slow alignment and a line that basically avoids every major development center that you can connect to. The only thing the Richmond Hill Line will ever be useful for is being an express service to downtown, it would be an absolutely horrible RER route.

I agree with you that it won't be effective as a DRL with the horrible slow alignment, difficult interchanges between Line 2 and Line 5, etc.

But it wouldn't cost $6 billion. There aren't a lot of grade separations that are necessary, and nothing like the structure that exists on the old CP line down the Don; biggest cost other than double-tracking is probably elevating that piece of track that's prone to flash flooding near the Don.

The problem is, that you only end up with a line that's about the same speed from Richmond Hill/Langstaff to Union that's a similar travel time to the subway. Which really only relieves Line 1 of a solitary station pair - plus some rides if you can somehow create good transfers between Line 2 and Line 5 ... and the Ontario Line.

Personally, I think the solution for Richmond Hill is to have the Ontario Line take over the alignment north of Eglinton - that would solve the Don Valley problems and actually give an alternate destination downtown that could divert more people from Line 1.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

I agree with you that it won't be effective as a DRL with the horrible slow alignment, difficult interchanges between Line 2 and Line 5, etc.

But it wouldn't cost $6 billion. There aren't a lot of grade separations that are necessary, and nothing like the structure that exists on the old CP line down the Don; biggest cost other than double-tracking is probably elevating that piece of track that's prone to flash flooding near the Don.

The problem is, that you only end up with a line that's about the same speed from Richmond Hill/Langstaff to Union that's a similar travel time to the subway. Which really only relieves Line 1 of a solitary station pair - plus some rides if you can somehow create good transfers between Line 2 and Line 5 ... and the Ontario Line.

Personally, I think the solution for Richmond Hill is to have the Ontario Line take over the alignment north of Eglinton - that would solve the Don Valley problems and actually give an alternate destination downtown that could divert more people from Line 1.

I somewhat agree, but also see a real benefit to keeping Richmond Hill mainline compatible in that it enables a Barrie/Richmond Hill connection at some stage. Long term I'd say there's a good case for Richmond Hill to cross over and terminate at Newmarket... It's not impossible with light metro, and the crossover itself would be cheaper, but that's a lot of duplication to get the service north of Aurora.

 

[44 North]

Doncaster Diamond + Floodproofing the Don Valley section (which will cost a ton of money) + building some interchange stations (good luck getting an interchange with Line 2 that is anywhere close to decent - without it RER service is kind of pointless) + acquiring a ton of trackage from CN, etc..

Perhaps it won't be more expensive, but it won't cost much cheaper, and it would be a lot worse in terms of value for money because you still have to deal with a horrible and slow alignment and a line that basically avoids every major development center that you can connect to. The only thing the Richmond Hill Line will ever be useful for is being an express service to downtown, it would be an absolutely horrible RER route.

Doncaster grade-separation is a $200M project. And flood-proofing not a single one price. There's protection levels for 5yr flood scenarios, for 500yr scenarios, and everything in between. This was pegged at $100M-2B. Some minor investments appear to have been made over the years in the way of new ballast and erosion control, and as it stands USRC to the Belleville/Bala split would most definitely be bundled with the flood-proofing that's part of the new yard under the viaduct. An extra track a few km north of Doncaster isn't all that much. All told it appears costs for 2WAD up to RH is $1.5B, and $2.5B for RER. This is from the RER IBC.

So def a lot cheaper than +6B. Not arguing here nor there whether you like investing in GO, just pointing out your cost numbers vis a vis YNSE don't add up.

Personally, I think the solution for Richmond Hill is to have the Ontario Line take over the alignment north of Eglinton - that would solve the Don Valley problems and actually give an alternate destination downtown that could divert more people from Line 1.

I don't think RH line should be molested like that. It's a good, reliable line that serves a semi-express purpose. Best termini for any OL I think is NNE toward Vic Park/Sheppard.

 

[ARG1]

Doncaster grade-separation is a $200M project. And flood-proofing not a single one price. There's protection levels for 5yr flood scenarios, for 500yr scenarios, and everything in between. This was pegged at $100M-2B. Some minor investments appear to have been made over the years in the way of new ballast and erosion control, and as it stands USRC to the Belleville/Bala split would most definitely be bundled with the flood-proofing that's part of the new yard under the viaduct. An extra track a few km north of Doncaster isn't all that much. All told it appears costs for 2WAD up to RH is $1.5B, and $2.5B for RER. This is from the RER IBC.

So def a lot cheaper than +6B. Not arguing here nor there whether you like investing in GO, just pointing out your cost numbers vis a vis YNSE don't add up.

First, the flood protections only go up to the new yard. Anything north of basically the Prince Edward Viaduct would need to be flood proofed, which will probably be more expensive than what's currently done.

That being said, while I might've been overdramatic when it came to the cost, the point at the end is that its not that cheap and in the end Richmond Hill RER will likely be of a significantly worse value for the reasons I'll explain later. My 6 Billion really comes from the money it would take to completely revamp the alignment that would make it a somewhat decent RER line, which includes buying out parts of the CP Mainline and introducing a new ROW somewhere at the top of the Don Valley, and the reason for that is outlined below.

I don't think RH line should be molested like that. It's a good, reliable line that serves a semi-express purpose. Best termini for any OL I think is NNE toward Vic Park/Sheppard.

Change semi-express to express, and your statement is good. Here's the deal, The reason why Richmond Hill RER isn't on Metrolinx's radar is not only because of the track sharing issues north of Doncaster, its because the line would make for a horrible RER line, and I'm saying this as someone who lives near the Richmond Hill line, and would theoretically benefit from a Richmond Hill RER. The most important part of any RER line is to not only be fast for long distance trips, but to also travel in a corridor where tons of residences and locations can be easily served, where connections can easily be made to other lines and to be a backbone for a regional transit network. Let's use the Barrie Line as an example. While at the moment stops are extremely few and far between, it is currently planned to have several different interchanges with different rapid transit routes. Caledonia Station will have a direct connection with Line 5, Downsview Park already has a direct connection to Line 1, Lansdowne will be a good connection to Line 2, and there is a proposal to eventually build a station at Highway 7 called Concord to connect to Viva Orange and the 407 Transitway. This ultimately means that if someone lives in vaughan and wants to visit someone in Northern Toronto, they can get to the Barrie Line, travel down to Caledonia, then easily transfer to Line 5 and travel east, or if they want to get to High Park, they can travel to Lansdowne and transfer to Line 2 and travel west. You can even eventually add stations at St. Clair to connect to the 512, and you can keep going. On top of having good access to interchanges, it is found on a straight developable corridor which you can TOD meaning that you can get people that live on the line and with the transfers, can commute to many parts of the city and the greater region. Part of the reason why Kirby GO makes some sense (even if it is ultimately really really silly) is that theoretically with a Kirby GO, you can create a major TOD corridor along Keele Street that is backed by the close proximity to the Barrie Line, and create a transit - development relationship that Yonge Street has with the Yonge Line as an example.

The same exact things can be said for the Stouffville and Kitchener Lines, however cannot be said with the Richmond Hill Line. By being situated at the bottom of the valley, transfers to any other lines basically become impossible. Want to transfer to Line 2? Pony up a ton of money for a Gondola or a Funicular so that you have a transfer that nobody will end up using because of how long it takes. Ontario Line? Forget about it. Eglinton is a very strong maybe for feasibility but its hard to say due to the extremely sensitive environmental area, so what you're left with is at best a status quo which is a 1 stop shuttle between Line 4 and Union which, isn't great. The position at the bottom of the valley also means development is impossible. You can't build infill stations because with the exception of maybe the Evergreen Brickworks, there is no place to build anything that would need a station to reach it. You will basically end up with a Frequent Electrified Rail line that purposefully avoids every development in the area en route to downtown Toronto which would be very strange to say the least.

Finally let's talk travel time. The position at the bottom of the valley means that trains have to travel slowly. Unlike the other GO lines which (for the most part) run on straight track that theoretically lets the trains press down the gas and go WEEEE, movement through the valley requires trains to run fairly slowly, around 70km/h to not derail. This makes travel times extremely slow compared to its counter parts. Richmond Hill GO is situated just north of Major Mackenzie Drive. Travel time to Union? 45 mins. Maple GO is also situated just north of Major Mackenzie. Travel time to Union? 30 mins (Pre covid, rn its 35 mins because of Davenport Diamond Construction). To be even more embarrassing, travel time to Union from Langstaff: 40 mins. Travel time to Union from Langstaff via Viva Blue: 57 mins, and that's on a bus + a subway with frequent stop spacing. With the Yonge North extension, travel times being generous would be cut to 50 mins, and if you include the fact that most workers have to transfer to Line 1 from Union Station and walk a long way to get to the subway, basically means that for a good chunk of commuters, the Yonge Line will be as fast as the status quo Richmond Hill GO line despite the former having a ton of intermediate stops, and the latter only have 2 intermediate stops.

All of this is to say that @nfitz idea for the Ontario Line actually ain't that bad. The biggest issue with the Richmond Hill line is the Don Valley section south of Oriole, however north of Oriole the corridor wouldn't be that bad as a frequent RT corridor. OL sharing the line north of Oriole means that rush hour commuters that need to head to the downtown core of Union Station still have the Richmond Hill Line as an express-to-downtown serve meanwhile commuters to areas other than downtown Toronto, or off peak travelers to different areas around the city still have the Ontario Line for convenient transfers and more local transit service. I think at the end of the day though the current Yonge North plans are still the most logical when it comes to the perspective of a regional network. Richmond Hill Centre is going to be a massive regional hub with many different BRT lines converging including the 407 transitway. The areas around the land are already slated for tons of high density development and if built would definitely quickly become an extremely used station on the network. As a valuable regional hub it only makes sense to directly to the other major nodes in the region such as Midtown Toronto and North York Centre. Yonge North being built means that in the distant future when the 407 Transitway is built that allows for passengers and commuters to quickly travel across the region and reach important nodes Yonge North by just directly transferring to the Yonge Line rather than transfer to the Ontario Line, then transfer to the Sheppard Line before reaching North York Centre (or use the bus which sounds even more awkward and less appealing).

There is a reason people constantly make fun of the Richmond Hill line, and why it has the bad rep that it has. It really is in a lot of ways the Black Sheep of the GO network and not in a good way. I believe in the IBC Metrolinx put it themselves that the Richmond Hill Line has no future in RER whatsoever, and there's a good reason for that. The Richmond Hill line while it is a decent peak hour downtowner service, would make for a terrible RER service unless a major change in allignment with a new ROW and everything, which would cost so much money that it probably isn't worth it.

 

[syn]

... because there aren't preexisting rail corridors to STC or york U/ Vaughan metro centre ... Go and the subway can coexist... using preexisting rail corridors for the subway can make a lot of sense in a lot of different places, but it shouldn't have so much overlap that the subway just serves as a local service for GO

Nearly 50% of the Yonge Subway from Bloor to Eglinton is above ground (or more accurately, open cut).

The Spadina Line, from Eglinton to Wilson is entirely above ground.

Why is it that the TTC could construct significant above ground sections - including sections in dense areas and expensive residential neighbourhoods?

You're right - there isn't a pre-existing rail corridor to the VMC. But there was certainly a lot of open space.

There is most certainly a pre-existing rail corridor to STC - it's elevated and could've been upgraded for a tiny fraction of what the SSE will cost.

If the TTC could figure this out 70 years ago, there's really no reason we need to build almost entirely underground suburban extensions.

Your response makes it really clear that whether someone is taking the GO or TTC is certainly not irrelevant - even when factoring in fare integration.

 

[44 North]

First, the flood protections only go up to the new yard. Anything north of basically the Prince Edward Viaduct would need to be flood proofed, which will probably be more expensive than what's currently done.

That being said, while I might've been overdramatic when it came to the cost, the point at the end is that its not that cheap and in the end Richmond Hill RER will likely be of a significantly worse value for the reasons I'll explain later. My 6 Billion really comes from the money it would take to completely revamp the alignment that would make it a somewhat decent RER line, which includes buying out parts of the CP Mainline and introducing a new ROW somewhere at the top of the Don Valley, and the reason for that is outlined below.

Change semi-express to express, and your statement is good. Here's the deal, The reason why Richmond Hill RER isn't on Metrolinx's radar is not only because of the track sharing issues north of Doncaster, its because the line would make for a horrible RER line, and I'm saying this as someone who lives near the Richmond Hill line, and would theoretically benefit from a Richmond Hill RER. The most important part of any RER line is to not only be fast for long distance trips, but to also travel in a corridor where tons of residences and locations can be easily served, where connections can easily be made to other lines and to be a backbone for a regional transit network. Let's use the Barrie Line as an example. While at the moment stops are extremely few and far between, it is currently planned to have several different interchanges with different rapid transit routes. Caledonia Station will have a direct connection with Line 5, Downsview Park already has a direct connection to Line 1, Lansdowne will be a good connection to Line 2, and there is a proposal to eventually build a station at Highway 7 called Concord to connect to Viva Orange and the 407 Transitway. This ultimately means that if someone lives in vaughan and wants to visit someone in Northern Toronto, they can get to the Barrie Line, travel down to Caledonia, then easily transfer to Line 5 and travel east, or if they want to get to High Park, they can travel to Lansdowne and transfer to Line 2 and travel west. You can even eventually add stations at St. Clair to connect to the 512, and you can keep going. On top of having good access to interchanges, it is found on a straight developable corridor which you can TOD meaning that you can get people that live on the line and with the transfers, can commute to many parts of the city and the greater region. Part of the reason why Kirby GO makes some sense (even if it is ultimately really really silly) is that theoretically with a Kirby GO, you can create a major TOD corridor along Keele Street that is backed by the close proximity to the Barrie Line, and create a transit - development relationship that Yonge Street has with the Yonge Line as an example.

The same exact things can be said for the Stouffville and Kitchener Lines, however cannot be said with the Richmond Hill Line. By being situated at the bottom of the valley, transfers to any other lines basically become impossible. Want to transfer to Line 2? Pony up a ton of money for a Gondola or a Funicular so that you have a transfer that nobody will end up using because of how long it takes. Ontario Line? Forget about it. Eglinton is a very strong maybe for feasibility but its hard to say due to the extremely sensitive environmental area, so what you're left with is at best a status quo which is a 1 stop shuttle between Line 4 and Union which, isn't great. The position at the bottom of the valley also means development is impossible. You can't build infill stations because with the exception of maybe the Evergreen Brickworks, there is no place to build anything that would need a station to reach it. You will basically end up with a Frequent Electrified Rail line that purposefully avoids every development in the area en route to downtown Toronto which would be very strange to say the least.

Finally let's talk travel time. The position at the bottom of the valley means that trains have to travel slowly. Unlike the other GO lines which (for the most part) run on straight track that theoretically lets the trains press down the gas and go WEEEE, movement through the valley requires trains to run fairly slowly, around 70km/h to not derail. This makes travel times extremely slow compared to its counter parts. Richmond Hill GO is situated just north of Major Mackenzie Drive. Travel time to Union? 45 mins. Maple GO is also situated just north of Major Mackenzie. Travel time to Union? 30 mins (Pre covid, rn its 35 mins because of Davenport Diamond Construction). To be even more embarrassing, travel time to Union from Langstaff: 40 mins. Travel time to Union from Langstaff via Viva Blue: 57 mins, and that's on a bus + a subway with frequent stop spacing. With the Yonge North extension, travel times being generous would be cut to 50 mins, and if you include the fact that most workers have to transfer to Line 1 from Union Station and walk a long way to get to the subway, basically means that for a good chunk of commuters, the Yonge Line will be as fast as the status quo Richmond Hill GO line despite the former having a ton of intermediate stops, and the latter only have 2 intermediate stops.

All of this is to say that @nfitz idea for the Ontario Line actually ain't that bad. The biggest issue with the Richmond Hill line is the Don Valley section south of Oriole, however north of Oriole the corridor wouldn't be that bad as a frequent RT corridor. OL sharing the line north of Oriole means that rush hour commuters that need to head to the downtown core of Union Station still have the Richmond Hill Line as an express-to-downtown serve meanwhile commuters to areas other than downtown Toronto, or off peak travelers to different areas around the city still have the Ontario Line for convenient transfers and more local transit service. I think at the end of the day though the current Yonge North plans are still the most logical when it comes to the perspective of a regional network. Richmond Hill Centre is going to be a massive regional hub with many different BRT lines converging including the 407 transitway. The areas around the land are already slated for tons of high density development and if built would definitely quickly become an extremely used station on the network. As a valuable regional hub it only makes sense to directly to the other major nodes in the region such as Midtown Toronto and North York Centre. Yonge North being built means that in the distant future when the 407 Transitway is built that allows for passengers and commuters to quickly travel across the region and reach important nodes Yonge North by just directly transferring to the Yonge Line rather than transfer to the Ontario Line, then transfer to the Sheppard Line before reaching North York Centre (or use the bus which sounds even more awkward and less appealing).

There is a reason people constantly make fun of the Richmond Hill line, and why it has the bad rep that it has. It really is in a lot of ways the Black Sheep of the GO network and not in a good way. I believe in the IBC Metrolinx put it themselves that the Richmond Hill Line has no future in RER whatsoever, and there's a good reason for that. The Richmond Hill line while it is a decent peak hour downtowner service, would make for a terrible RER service unless a major change in allignment with a new ROW and everything, which would cost so much money that it probably isn't worth it.

Again I'm not arguing whether you like investing in GO or not. I gave you cost numbers since you didn't know them. That's it.

You keep talking about RER. What is "RER" really? It's an acronym, an election promise from a previous party, and something that seems to be slowly diluting into general projects over a longer time frame. Is RER some binary tangible thing? No it's three letters. Are they even using that term anymore?

What do we know about the RH line? It's being extended with a cargantuan station, and Oriole is to become a massive new station. Whether you whine or not the prov is upgrading the line. And in general the line had pretty solid ridership when modeled with upgrades. Also has some of the highest ridership/km, in spite of having like the lowest service. Not too shabby.

 

[ARG1]

Again I'm not arguing whether you like investing in GO or not. I gave you cost numbers since you didn't know them. That's it.

You keep talking about RER. What is "RER" really? It's an acronym, an election promise from a previous party, and something that seems to be slowly diluting into general projects over a longer time frame. Is RER some binary tangible thing? No it's three letters. Are they even using that term anymore?

What do we know about the RH line? It's being extended with a cargantuan station, and Oriole is to become a massive new station. Whether you whine or not the prov is upgrading the line. And in general the line had pretty solid ridership when modeled with upgrades. Also has some of the highest ridership/km, in spite of having like the lowest service. Not too shabby.

RER is actually really easy to define. It is a series of separate individual projects with the end goal being the electrification and double tracking of various GO lines to transform them from commuter rail lines into frequent Regional Rail lines similar to the RER in Paris (where the name GO RER comes from). The projects include station rebuilds to turn them from asphalt curbs with bus shelters to proper stations with platform canopies and level boarding. In effect its the construction of 5 new subway lines within the Greater Toronto Area. To pull an example from another major European city, we're basically building an S-Bahn for the GTA.

When I said Richmond Hill Line has no future in RER, I meant that it has no future in being high frequency regional rail, not that it has no future period and is slated to be demolished in 15 years. Bloomington GO is a greenfield park and ride station. Its purpose is to take cars off of the 404 during rush hours and give commuters a way to reach downtown Toronto without sitting on the DVP for 2 hours, as well as to provide additional parking space to some overcrowded Barrie Line stations such as Aurora. This is why Bloomington has a massive parking lot and parking structure despite being in the middle of the green belt. The Oriole upgrades is less of an upgrade and more of a northward shift so that the station has a proper connection with Line 4. Its not slated to happen any time soon, and is instead something that will probably happen alongside the extension of Line 4 east to meet Line 2.

Yes there are investments happening to the Richmond Hill Line, I'm not denying that, however the topic of discussion is to answer the question of why not provide enhanced GO service to Richmond Hill Centre instead of extending the Yonge Line to RHC, ie the transformation of the Richmond Hill line to an all day frequent electrified Regional Rail line like the Stouffville, Kitchener, and Barrie lines to which the answer is the 5 paragraph post I wrote above.

 

[ARG1]

Nearly 50% of the Yonge Subway from Bloor to Eglinton is above ground (or more accurately, open cut).

The Spadina Line, from Eglinton to Wilson is entirely above ground.

Why is it that the TTC could construct significant above ground sections - including sections in dense areas and expensive residential neighbourhoods?

You're right - there isn't a pre-existing rail corridor to the VMC. But there was certainly a lot of open space.

There is most certainly a pre-existing rail corridor to STC - it's elevated and could've been upgraded for a tiny fraction of what the SSE will cost.

If the TTC could figure this out 70 years ago, there's really no reason we need to build almost entirely underground suburban extensions.

Your response makes it really clear that whether someone is taking the GO or TTC is certainly not irrelevant - even when factoring in fare integration.

You do realize that the open cut design required the demolition of many businesses and homes, not to mention that if they were to do that I'm pretty sure you'd be endlessly whining regardless, if your stance on cutting off a tiny corner of a public park is any indication.

TYSSE's design was a mistake, and nobody is going to argue that. TYSSE EASILY could've been elevated or placed at grade with no issues yet the liberals chose to overspend.

SSE however is a completely different story. We're talking about an underground allignment under McCowan that would allow it to be run under a ton of developable which could be TOD'd to bring in more housing units that Toronto desperately needs, vs an industrial wasteland that isn't going anywhere, an alignment that would only serve bus connections of the current SRT is anything look at (there's a reason why after 30 years, the only stations that are used on the SRT are STC, Kennedy, and maybe Lawrence East). Its completely different from the Ontario Line where the rail corridor runs through a ton of existing development and despite being on a rail corridor would still serve a ton of people. Its an apples to oranges comparison. There's a reason why Lawrence East GO was cancelled in favour of the Subway Station. Lawrence East Subway Station will and will eventually serve a ton of people. Lawrence East GO will be under a massive bridge that will be extremely inaccessible to pedestrians and walk in traffic while being situated in a corridor bad for development.

P.S. Please tell me how you plan on even getting Line 2 over to the rail corridor, I'd love to know.

 

[44 North]

Yes there are investments happening to the Richmond Hill Line, I'm not denying that, however the topic of discussion is to answer the question of why not provide enhanced GO service to Richmond Hill Centre instead of extending the Yonge Line to RHC, ie the transformation of the Richmond Hill line to an all day frequent electrified Regional Rail line like the Stouffville, Kitchener, and Barrie lines to which the answer is the 5 paragraph post I wrote above.

This discussion has been had and you Markham ppl always frame it with nothing being built on Yonge. Which is flawed and childish since no one has ever said that. Def no reason a light metro couldn't be built on Yonge in lieu of an extension, and the savings go torwards upgrading the RH line. Actually seems more logical than the Prov's plan to tunnel 50m below Thornhill cottages and ranch homes with YNSE.

SSE however is a completely different story. We're talking about an underground allignment under McCowan that would allow it to be run under a ton of developable which could be TOD'd to bring in more housing units that Toronto desperately needs, vs an industrial wasteland that isn't going anywhere, an alignment that would only serve bus connections of the current SRT is anything look at (there's a reason why after 30 years, the only stations that are used on the SRT are STC, Kennedy, and maybe Lawrence East). Its completely different from the Ontario Line where the rail corridor runs through a ton of existing development and despite being on a rail corridor would still serve a ton of people. Its an apples to oranges comparison. There's a reason why Lawrence East GO was cancelled in favour of the Subway Station. Lawrence East Subway Station will and will eventually serve a ton of people. Lawrence East GO will be under a massive bridge that will be extremely inaccessible to pedestrians and walk in traffic while being situated in a corridor bad for development.

I believe it's been noted in a U of T study that there's more developable land with Line 3's routing than SSE. Also they're planning on tunneling below a river making this proposed Lawrence East station extremely deep. I heard an awful lot of bellyaching about RL's Gerrard station depth. Well this is like that, yet radio silence. Ignoring a bridge, there are other routing options available that could allow for a shallower tunnel, and use of Line 3's surface ROW. If the Prov cares about savings, developing, and not tunneling under rivers why haven't they presented these options?

 

[KhalilHeron]

Nearly 50% of the Yonge Subway from Bloor to Eglinton is above ground (or more accurately, open cut).

The Spadina Line, from Eglinton to Wilson is entirely above ground.

Why is it that the TTC could construct significant above ground sections - including sections in dense areas and expensive residential neighbourhoods?

You're right - there isn't a pre-existing rail corridor to the VMC. But there was certainly a lot of open space.

There is most certainly a pre-existing rail corridor to STC - it's elevated and could've been upgraded for a tiny fraction of what the SSE will cost.

If the TTC could figure this out 70 years ago, there's really no reason we need to build almost entirely underground suburban extensions.

Your response makes it really clear that whether someone is taking the GO or TTC is certainly not irrelevant - even when factoring in fare integration.

You were literally talking about using rail corridors in Scarborough, Richmond Hill, and Scarborough, for TTC subway expansion... your argument changes real quick when your argument falls apparent huh I'm definitely not defending the YSSE, or SSE alignment or anything, and the ttc definitely should have planned a bit farther in advances and preserved some corridors for the subway... but that Is not what you were talking about so

I believe it's been noted in a U of T study that there's more developable land with Line 3's routing than SSE. Also they're planning on tunneling below a river making this proposed Lawrence East station extremely deep. I heard an awful lot of bellyaching about RL's Gerrard station depth. Well this is like that, yet radio silence. Ignoring a bridge, there are other routing options available that could allow for a shallower tunnel, and use of Line 3's surface ROW. If the Prov cares about savings, developing, and not tunneling under rivers why haven't they presented these options?

More developable land doesn't mean a better alignment... the RT has been there for over 30 years and the land still isn't developed. I don't think the SSE alignment is the best one out there... but I doubt they'd pursue the more expensive option without exploring cheaper options. Theres no real political motivation to not have the subway bridge over the highland creek (since it can be covered and is like for 100 metres so I'm guessing there is some conflict with hospital's property or something

 

[Coolstar]

Hey can we take this huge convo to either the SSE, YNSE or the GO threads? Gone off-topic.

 

[syn]

You were literally talking about using rail corridors in Scarborough, Richmond Hill, and Scarborough, for TTC subway expansion... your argument changes real quick when your argument falls apparent huh I'm definitely not defending the YSSE, or SSE alignment or anything, and the ttc definitely should have planned a bit farther in advances and preserved some corridors for the subway... but that Is not what you were talking about so

My response is quite pertinent to what you wrote.

This is what I originally wrote:

"So?

There are rail corridors in Richmond Hill, Markham, Scarborough, etc.

Why aren't we using those for affordable above-ground transit expansion?"

There is a rail corridor to Richmond Hill/Markham which ends where the YNSE will.

There's an existing rail corridor to STC that could be reused.

Your post didn't address those areas (at least not accurately).

I agree with you that the TTC, GO, etc. are different and serve different needs.

Ultimately I find it fascinating that people are so fixated on getting bang for the buck with the OL (even if it's inadequate) but have very little resistance to expensive, deep, underground subways to the suburbs, which provide at least as many options for above-ground alignments.

 

[generalcanada]

wait what thread is this?