[MisterF]

While Spain has certainly received a lot of money from the EU, we can't use that as an excuse. That money doesn't just appear out of nowhere; it comes from every country in the union. And countries that are major contributors to the EU still have rapid transit systems that put Toronto's to shame.

And Spain is a very wealthy country. It's not as wealthy as Canada, but it's one of the big 5 in the EU and per capita it's around 30th in the world.

 

[gweed123]

Since we're on this topic again, John Tory tweeted this out on Monday. In fact, Chicago exemplifies a city that would never build a 6km, tunneled one-stop subway extension at the network's periphery.

Yup. Their Red Line extension project in the city's south end is in the preserved ROW of the median of the Dan Ryan Expressway. Honestly, I'd take less-than-ideal access and surrounding built form over a tunnel underneath a Wal Mart parking lot.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While Spain has certainly received a lot of money from the EU, we can't use that as an excuse. That money doesn't just appear out of nowhere; it comes from every country in the union. And countries that are major contributors to the EU still have rapid transit systems that put Toronto's to shame.

And Spain is a very wealthy country. It's not as wealthy as Canada, but it's one of the big 5 in the EU and per capita it's around 30th in the world.

No doubt, but we are talking about European densities and European sensibilities. Straight up comparisons without regard to context doesn't move us forward (beyond - we are so envious!)

And yes, Spain is no longer a "have not" - though the last round of expansion in Madrid was partly attributed to a government that was willing to plow large amount of resources to the capital at the expense of the periphery. That political context doesn't really exist in Canada.

Also, Spain in general (and this can be found in other jurisdictions, e.g. Japan, China) appears to have overinvested in infrastructure - it's almost like the complete opposite to Toronto where building for the sake of building was sold as a good thing.

AoD

 

[Kitsune]

Well about separating YUS into two lines don't quote me because I know next to zero about actual operations, but couldn't trains going North on University just use one platform and trains going North on Yonge use the other? With trains crossing over immediately upon exiting Union?

I've always thought YUS has the potential to be a loop if for example it was connected across at Sheppard and then the Northern sections were turned into separate lines, this could allow for a bunch of new connections though again from an operational standpoint I'm pretty sure this would make things even less reliable.

In reference to comparisons to other cities, I'm talking less about the density of lines and more about how line construction was prioritized, It appears that especially in London and Tokyo that orbital lines have been much more popular and this itself only leads to a more diverse set of destinations from development based around transit rather than a single core that all lines lead into.

Maybe a better example of what I was referring to can be found in Sydney a city which is pretty similar to Toronto in size. The network is significantly less dependent on one single line that's necessary to connect to every other line.

Sydney though is more akin to GO-RER on steriods. They are only now building there first rapid transit line (which will need a third crossing under the harbour)

 

[MisterF]

No doubt, but we are talking about European densities and European sensibilities. Straight up comparisons without regard to context doesn't move us forward (beyond - we are so envious!)

And yes, Spain is no longer a "have not" - though the last round of expansion in Madrid was partly attributed to a government that was willing to plow large amount of resources to the capital at the expense of the periphery. That political context doesn't really exist in Canada.

Also, Spain in general (and this can be found in other jurisdictions, e.g. Japan, China) appears to have overinvested in infrastructure - it's almost like the complete opposite to Toronto where building for the sake of building was sold as a good thing.

AoD

I'm not trying to compare straight up - it's not like I'm arguing that Toronto should have 300 km of subway lines. And Madrid is just one example that's been talked about in this thread along with several other cities. What I'm getting at is that even by North American standards, for a city with its size and density, Toronto has a very small rapid transit system. We don't even have the most in Canada. Vancouver's Skytrain and Montreal's metro are both longer than Toronto's subway/RT. You can't blame that on political context, density and European sensibilities.

 

[ssiguy2]

Instead of just building a DRL, is it possible to instead built a RER line down the Richmond Hill line and instead of going to Union it turns towards Queen and makes a DRL and potentially extending it to Dufferin to merge with the Lakeshore West RER line? It would offer all the benefits of a DRL but would make one long route, be far cheaper to build than a total new subway north of Eglinton, and would relieve a lot of pressure from Union.

 

[torontologist]

And yes, Spain is no longer a "have not" - though the last round of expansion in Madrid was partly attributed to a government that was willing to plow large amount of resources to the capital at the expense of the periphery. That political context doesn't really exist in Canada.

Speaking of context, this is the clincher. The Spanish government acknowledged the fact that the economic future of developed countries is dependent on services and knowledge that can only generate from large urban agglomerations, and they invested accordingly. Spain is further along in a process that Ontario is just beginning; the mass movement of people from rural regions that are no longer economically productive towards urban centres.

It seems our government is starting to get with the picture, and willing to invest in the infrastructure that will keep Toronto competitive.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Instead of just building a DRL, is it possible to instead built a RER line down the Richmond Hill line and instead of going to Union it turns towards Queen and makes a DRL and potentially extending it to Dufferin to merge with the Lakeshore West RER line? It would offer all the benefits of a DRL but would make one long route, be far cheaper to build than a total new subway north of Eglinton, and would relieve a lot of pressure from Union.

RER will never provide the necessary capacity for this.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Instead of just building a DRL, is it possible to instead built a RER line down the Richmond Hill line and instead of going to Union it turns towards Queen and makes a DRL and potentially extending it to Dufferin to merge with the Lakeshore West RER line? It would offer all the benefits of a DRL but would make one long route, be far cheaper to build than a total new subway north of Eglinton, and would relieve a lot of pressure from Union.

It's been discussed before, back in 2014 when we were all discussing wtf SmartTrack actually is.

There are a few things that are no-bueno with the Richmond Hill line though.

1) It needs a total rebuild in parts between the West Don Lands and Eglinton and massive upgrade in other parts if we want to upgrade it to RER. The current alignment is prone to flooding, is circuitious, among other difficulties.
2) No interchange with the Bloor-Danforth line, kind of the point of the Relief Line.
3) If we somehow made the interchange work, it would be too west to maximize effectiveness (at this point, you may as well just head to Yonge)
4) Not a great location for interchange with either Eglinton or Sheppard lines either.
5) Destination would be Union station, which is out of the way for most commuters heading to King/Queen area.
6) Several studies have come out saying that GO-RER will not provide relief to the Yonge line.
7) Richmond Hill line has very low ridership today.

-----

I have proposed in this thread before the idea of abandoning the Richmond Hill line and using the corridor north of Eglinton for the DRL, so we could build the DRL subway at-grade for cheap all the way to Richmond Hill.

 

[Anonymous2000]

There are a few things that are no-bueno with the Richmond Hill line though.

1) It needs a total rebuild in parts between the West Don Lands and Eglinton and massive upgrade in other parts if we want to upgrade it to RER. The current alignment is prone to flooding, is circuitious, among other difficulties.
2) No interchange with the Bloor-Danforth line, kind of the point of the Relief Line.
3) If we somehow made the interchange work, it would be too west to maximize effectiveness (at this point, you may as well just head to Yonge)
4) Not a great location for interchange with either Eglinton or Sheppard lines either.
5) Destination would be Union station, which is out of the way for most commuters heading to King/Queen area.
6) Several studies have come out saying that GO-RER will not provide relief to the Yonge line.
7) Richmond Hill line has very low ridership today.

Why not modify the Richmond Hill GO line? My idea for the Richmond Hill GO line to replace the DRL subway is to have it leave Union and travel east alongside the Stouffville and Lakeshore East GO lines all the way to the proposed Gerrard Square station. Once there, have the RH travel north under Pape providing a connection to the Bloor-Danforth subway. Then have it re-emerge with the CP Midtown Rail corridor north of Millwood with a station next to Canvaco Rd (replace some industrial buildings) and add a station at Leslie/Eglinton to connect with the LRT. (this will at least satisfy the Leasiders and we can take advantage of the re-development of the Celestica site) Then once it reaches Don Mills, I would have it tunneled under Don Mills with a stop at The Shops at Don Mills, then have the line re-emerge and join up with the existing RH line just SW of Chipping Rd. Also move Oriole station slightly north to provide better connection with the Leslie subway station and move Old Cummer slightly south to provide better connection to buses on Finch Ave.

This proposal will solve the flooding problem, provide a connection to the B-D subway, boost ridership by providing stops at Leaside and the Banbury-Don Mills neighborhoods and as I mentioned in the paragraph above, if we move Oriole and Old Cummer stations to there new respective positions, we can provide better connections to both Sheppard subway and Finch Ave buses. I never completely believe the studies posted by City staff or Metrolinx as I perceive them to be rigid and rife with politics. A better transit network requires thinking outside the box.

What are your thoughts? comments, criticisms?

 

[dowlingm]

Why not modify the Richmond Hill GO line? My idea for the Richmond Hill GO line to replace the DRL subway is to have it leave Union and travel east alongside the Stouffville and Lakeshore East GO lines all the way to the proposed Gerrard Square station. Once there, have the RH travel north under Pape providing a connection to the Bloor-Danforth subway. Then have it re-emerge with the CP Midtown Rail corridor north of Millwood with a station next to Canvaco Rd (replace some industrial buildings) and add a station at Leslie/Eglinton to connect with the LRT. (this will at least satisfy the Leasiders and we can take advantage of the re-development of the Celestica site) Then once it reaches Don Mills, I would have it tunneled under Don Mills with a stop at The Shops at Don Mills, then have the line re-emerge and join up with the existing RH line just SW of Chipping Rd. Also move Oriole station slightly north to provide better connection with the Leslie subway station and move Old Cummer slightly south to provide better connection to buses on Finch Ave.

This proposal will solve the flooding problem, provide a connection to the B-D subway, boost ridership by providing stops at Leaside and the Banbury-Don Mills neighborhoods and as I mentioned in the paragraph above, if we move Oriole and Old Cummer stations to there new respective positions, we can provide better connections to both Sheppard subway and Finch Ave buses. I never completely believe the studies posted by City staff or Metrolinx as I perceive them to be rigid and rife with politics. A better transit network requires thinking outside the box.

What are your thoughts? comments, criticisms?

There's thinking outside the box but there's also just ignoring the realities on the ground. How do two heavy rail tracks get off the LSE (which runs on overbridges through the local streetgrid) to a sublevel interchange at Pape and Danforth without driving a wrecking ball through an entire district? A subground GO station at Pape and Danforth - woo boy. And then you want to have the line "pop out" somehow at CP Leaside Yard? And... a Don Mills tunnel??

This is crayoning at its finest.

 

[Rainforest]

I have proposed in this thread before the idea of abandoning the Richmond Hill line and using the corridor north of Eglinton for the DRL, so we could build the DRL subway at-grade for cheap all the way to Richmond Hill.

One of the best options, IMO.

The southern portion of the RH line is hard to upgrade to subway-frequency service, for a number of reasons discussed above. A new, dedicated tunnel (plus a dedicated bridge over the Don Valley) is the best option for DRL between the downtown and Eglinton.

But north of Eglinton, the Richmond Hill line's right-of-way is reasonably suitable for subway service. The Sheppard interchange (Leslie instead of Don Mills) will be less than optimal, but if that comes with a large reduction in the construction costs, then it is still worth the effort.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

One of the best options, IMO.

The southern portion of the RH line is hard to upgrade to subway-frequency service, for a number of reasons discussed above. A new, dedicated tunnel (plus a dedicated bridge over the Don Valley) is the best option for DRL between the downtown and Eglinton.

But north of Eglinton, the Richmond Hill line's right-of-way is reasonably suitable for subway service. The Sheppard interchange (Leslie instead of Don Mills) will be less than optimal, but if that comes with a large reduction in the construction costs, then it is still worth the effort.

That is what I dislike about the plan too. As well as missing out on Shops at Don Mills on Lawrence which is just perfect site for a subway station.

Don Mills should not be difficult or expensive to tunnel under either, at least for a shorter stretch.

In the past I proposed a 'best-of-both-worlds' solution, where rather than enter the RH-GO corridor north of Lawrence, the Relief Line veers under the Finch Hydro Corridor for a bit and resurfaced at grade near Old Cummer and went on to Richmond Hill. This way, we stick to our urban planning principles along key intersections on Don Mills and have a much better interchange with Sheppard that wouldn't force a 1-stop transfer for Sheppard East riders.

The main benefit of this, besides replacing RH-GO with high frequency rapid service, is that it intercepts Yonge-subway bound York commuters with a route that is faster to downtown. Thus maximizing potential relief to the Yonge subway.

 

[Rainforest]

This is a really excellent idea, I'm not sure if changing the gauge would be expected or not. In the case that it is not then some long emu's could be a very interesting option.

The gauge is not that hard to change, especially on a surface route.

There are more generic compatibility questions involved. If the DRL is built according to the WislaHD's proposal - tunnel south of Eglinton, the RH surface right of way north of Eglinton - then, should it be made compatible with the Yonge and BD subway lines, or with the mainline rail service?

Obviously, it can't be compatible with both. Not only the gauges are different, but also the voltage, the floor height, the collision strength requirements etc.

Most likely, the southern portion will be cheaper to build if the subway technology is used; the tunnel can be smaller. But, the mainline technology would present many more branching options up north.

 

[44 North]

That is what I dislike about the plan too. As well as missing out on Shops at Don Mills on Lawrencewhich is just perfect site for a subway station.

Don Mills should not be difficult or expensive to tunnel under either, at least for a shorter stretch.

In the past I proposed a 'best-of-both-worlds' solution, where rather than enter the RH-GO corridor near Barber Greene north of Eglinton, the Relief Line veers under the Finch Hydro Corridor for a bit and resurfaced at grade near Old Cummer and went on to Richmond Hill. This way, we stick to our urban planning principles along key intersections on Don Mills and have a much better interchange with Sheppard that wouldn't force a 1-stop transfer for Sheppard East riders.

The main benefit of this, besides replacing RH-GO with high frequency rapid service, is that it intercepts Yonge-subway bound York commuters with a route that is faster to downtown. Thus maximizing potential relief to the Yonge subway.

I used to be into something kinda like this, but I don't think it really works. Even decades ago it was deduced that any RL line should be a subway/metro class system, i.e one separated from both road and mainline rail. We can't exactly mix the two, and I doubt there's enough space to put a 2-track subway guideway while leaving space for the mainline.

RH line should definitely be improved upon/extended, but the same goes for all GO corridors. Not to mention the building of new corridors (something we haven't seen since the early 70s probably). I think there's definitely room for outside-the-box thinking, using surface corridors, different types of rolling stock, open-air infrastructure etc with the RL... But it seems pretty cut and dry at this point that the line must be subway/metro.