[steveintoronto]

I guess it depends somewhat on how you define age but about 200 years, depending which city you're asking about.

Toronto and Chicago are around the same age, I believe. New York and Boston were both founded in the early 1600s.

So comparing Toronto to Paris is apples and oranges (or pommes et oranges, if you prefer).
Comparing Toronto to Boston and New York is Macintosh apples to Granny smith. Or something.

Fair enough. I can certainly make a point there, I was just researching this a week back, and there's some excellent vids up online at Youtube by CTA featuring every one of their L lines.

Are you familiar with how they put some the L train routes through the downtown core in 2 tunnels in the last half century? They still kept the Loop for connecting to other lines, and to this day, only one line terminates at the loop, the rest are "through-running", either via the Loop or through the tunnels under the core:

Elevated tracks appeared to be the right choice, as subways were too expensive to consider. And so the first 'L' train (then Chicago and South Side Rapid Transit Railroad) was built in 1892, and its inaugural journey took place on June 6, spanning 3.6 miles in 14 minutes.
[...]

http://loopchicago.com/blog/then-and-now-a-brief-history-of-the-chicago-l

In the event, Chicago won't be expanding the L, it has in fact shrunk markedly over the years, now a fraction of what it was, but they are building more...wait for it RER:

February 17, 2016
Dylan Hayward
Proposals similar to MHSRA’s CrossRail Chicago project are popping up everywhere! Metrolinx, Toronto’s transportation authority, is in the process of transforming their network by establishing Regional Express Rail (RER). This project involves electrification and 15-minute interval service throughout the day on 5 of the 7 GO transit lines. Similarly CrossRail Chicago proposes electrifying certain Metra lines in order to provide fast, frequent and dependable service. Both of these projects make the most out of existing infrastructure to dramatically increase their region’s connectivity.
[...]

A vision to create a high-capacity, multi-purpose passenger rail corridor through Chicago and Cook County by upgrading existing assets.
CrossRail could be the highest impact transportation project in the Midwest, serving high-frequency local commuter trains, dedicated airport express trains, and high-speed intercity trains.

A unified, cross-jurisdictional planning effort is needed to create the core of metro-Chicago's transit system and the heart of a re-energized Midwest passenger rail network.
[...]

http://www.crossrailchicago.org/

And both Calgary and Edmonton are going to low platform LRT:

The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.
[...]
Both systems, from the outset, adopted high-platform boarding. Edmonton’s stations have been somewhat simple and utilitarian, for the most part, apart from those in the subway section, while Calgary’s have tended to be elaborate and expensive.

Edmonton has about three miles of subway, extending from the northwest fringe of downtown to the University of Alberta, south of the center city. This approach was quite costly, and hindered significant extension of the line for a number of years.
[...]
Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents.
[...]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...t-low-floor-approach.html?channel=&Itemid=487

Seems some cities know how to be frugal with their demands...and it's not subways.

 

[44 North]

In my opinion, the Yonge North Subway Extension should go forward as planned/proposed, but here is an alternative.

Line 1 get extended to Steeles Ave (Cummer Station included), Viva Blue gets converted to an LRT between Major Mackenzie Dr to Steeles Ave. It is tunneled between Steeles and Bantry Ave, then surface LRT from Bantry to Major Mackenzie Dr. The benefits of this plan is that the TTC will not have to extend the Line 1 past Steeles Ave, which may be opposed by the Provincial Government and York Region, but that's another problem. It provides seamless transfer from TTC to Viva at Steeles Station as both lines/routes are underground (1 level to transfer). It does not require a lot of construction changes to the current construction of the Viva Blue Rapidway on Yonge (only some changes from Bantry Ave to Richmond Hill Centre. It also creates a little transit hub at Yonge/Major Mackenzie, which is planned to be the location of the new Richmond Hill Town Hall/Civic Centre, only if Viva Green and Viva Silver (with Viva Blue) create a small bus terminal there (goes off the street). And it has the capacity to me current ridership on Yonge north of Steeles, for the foreseeable future (~50 years, no source).

I don't know how the LRT will extend north of Major Mackenzie Dr because of the heritage area. Does anyone have any suggestions? Tunneled? Removing traffic lanes? Shared Lanes (pls no)? Widen the road anyways and kill the heritage area? I also don't know where the LRV storage and maintenance facility will be.

Something like that would probably be pretty solid. And seamlessly connecting to RH's real downtown and new civic centre would obviously be a benefit. Wouldn't doubt an amendment to bring subway there.

And I'm taking 44's non response as a sorry for totally misinterpreting something absurd he thought I said. Accepted. We're both magnanimous like that

No, not really. I only give a cursory glance to those long posts anyways, unless there's something interesting.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I guess it depends somewhat on how you define age but about 200 years, depending which city you're asking about.

Toronto and Chicago are around the same age, I believe. New York and Boston were both founded in the early 1600s.

So comparing Toronto to Paris is apples and oranges (or pommes et oranges, if you prefer).
Comparing Toronto to Boston and New York is Macintosh apples to Granny smith. Or something.

Chicago isn't a good comparison for Toronto. In the early 20th century, Chicago was the 5th largest city in the world, with a population of 3.7 Million, while Toronto had yet to crack 1 Million.

 

[nfitz]

Evidently it is beyond you.

Is it entirely necessary to sound like such a condescending asshole?

Other tube lines connect to network rail as well. Offhand the Bakerloo line and the sub-surface lines. And this is true in other cities as well - the Elizabeth Line has some similarities to Seoul Subway Line 1 - which is also connected to the heavy rail network (or at least it was the last time I rode it).

NYC will never build another subway, and the Second Ave one will never be finished.

That's your opinion - but it's only an opinion. Discussions continue on how to fund the next phase of the Second Avenue line - with indications that the Trump government is supportive.

New York is now looking at at further connecting the RERs to more stations.

They'd be fools not to - but more RER type services doesn't preclude subway.

In London's case, there's a long history of subway (tube) lines extending far into the countryside, often on heavy rail lines. There's not much difference between the Elizabeth line, and some of these other lines; the city centre spacing is further apart - but we've seen that with the other newer lines, with the Victoria line stations being further apart than the older lines, and the Jubilee line (especially the post-1970s section) stations being even further apart.

The tunnel and trains of the Elizabeth lines are larger than many of the other deep level tubes - but we've seen that before too of course.

I don't think anyone currently considers Thameslink services to be part of the subway (tube) system. Will it be after they finally finish? Hard to say - probably a function if they finally stop flip-flopping on whether TFL will take it over or not.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

No, not really. I only give a cursory glance to those long posts anyways, unless there's something interesting.

Usually it's correcting a gross factual error on your part (like bizarrely asserting I think an LRT-->subway transfer somehow leads to urban sprawl or that the Secondary Plan for LG doesn't explicitly state densities would have to be revisited if the subway isn't a subway). But you're right on two points: I could be more succinct and there's sure as shooting nothing interesting about you being wrong again and me having to explain why again.

Chicago isn't a good comparison for Toronto. In the early 20th century, Chicago was the 5th largest city in the world, with a population of 3.7 Million, while Toronto had yet to crack 1 Million.

I agree. SteveinToronto keeps comparing us to cities that had historical density when we still had dirt roads.

Chicago and NYC don't need more subways - nor do Paris or London - because their inner cores already look like a bowl of subway spaghetti.
Don Draper was riding "RER" from Ossining to his Manhattan office in 1962. We started to talk about it around 2010 and should have it partly up and running by 2025 or so.

You can't look at them, say "they're not building subways anymore!" and think the logic applies to us. We're in a totally different point of our evolution and have a totally different built form. Again, that's not to say we can't learn lessons from what's going on elsewhere, but you can't fit every peg into that hole.

(And even today, if you imposed NYC or even Chicago's subway system on our map half the lines would be vacant. Our population is not concentrated in the same way.)

What we need (IMHO) is a mix of modes be it normal bus, BRT, LRT, RER and subway and that's why it's such a shame Rob Ford et al have poisoned the well on LRT. Maybe that will change once people see the Crosstown; I bet it will. But you think you can sell a BRT in Etobicoke? Having debates about the best mode for a given corridor is fine and good and the right thing to do. But thinking subways aren't the thing anymore because of some other city doesn't necessarily add up.

 

[salsa]

Chicago and NYC don't need more subways - nor do Paris or London - because their inner cores already look like a bowl of subway spaghetti.

I see your point, however you're wrong about NYC - they actually do need more subways.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I see your point, however you're wrong about NYC - they actually do need more subways.

Sure, that may well be with all the new development they`re seeing in their inner core.

the point I was making boils down to that steveintoronto keeps citing cities that have built high-order transit for decades (or centuries!) and are now building other things as well. We can learn from their successes and mistakes but we can`t just skip that step in our evolution.

It`s like when people throw up our little U-with-a-cross map and complain how little subway we have compared to Paris and London and Berlin. Yeah, we do but it`s not a coincidence those cities were settled in Roman times and developed in a rather different historical context. Then there`s all the stuff about how they fund their systems at all levels of government and so forth. But the whole ``no one is building subways anymore`argument seems very simplistic given how far behind we are and it`s not an all-or-nothing thing.

I`m hoping RER and the Crosstown(and maybe even UP Express in its limited corridor) will show people there are different alternatives that work in different corridors.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Is it entirely necessary to sound like such a condescending asshole?

Other tube lines connect to network rail as well. Offhand the Bakerloo line and the sub-surface lines. And this is true in other cities as well - the Elizabeth Line has some similarities to Seoul Subway Line 1 - which is also connected to the heavy rail network (or at least it was the last time I rode it).

It runs above ground north of Queens Park Station, which is most of Bakerloo Line, sharing much of the above ground section with the Overground, which is analogous to RER. Crossrail will run more or less under the same conditions.

Anyways this thread has too much bickering over what RER/Subway are, and not enough about what they can do. The only thing that matters is the performance of the lines, not the technical definitions.

 

[salsa]

Sure, that may well be with all the new development they`re seeing in their inner core.

the point I was making boils down to that steveintoronto keeps citing cities that have built high-order transit for decades (or centuries!) and are now building other things as well. We can learn from their successes and mistakes but we can`t just skip that step in our evolution.

It`s like when people throw up our little U-with-a-cross map and complain how little subway we have compared to Paris and London and Berlin. Yeah, we do but it`s not a coincidence those cities were settled in Roman times and developed in a rather different historical context. Then there`s all the stuff about how they fund their systems at all levels of government and so forth. But the whole ``no one is building subways anymore`argument seems very simplistic given how far behind we are and it`s not an all-or-nothing thing.

I`m hoping RER and the Crosstown(and maybe even UP Express in its limited corridor) will show people there are different alternatives that work in different corridors.

Which is all true. I don't know why Steve Steve keeps talking about Crossrail in the DRL and Yonge subway threads (I don't have time to read his long-winded posts). Because if he really wants an RER tunnel in Toronto, then this would be the place to do it.

Source: Metrolinx Union Station Capacity Study​

 

[steveintoronto]

How the Elizabeth Line services are considered to be anything but a subway line, like the other tube lines, is beyond me.

To which I stated it was...

steveintoronto said: ↑
Evidently it is beyond you.

To which Fitz replied:

Is it entirely necessary to sound like such a condescending asshole?

I just confirmed what you stated.

Because if he really wants an RER tunnel in Toronto, then this would be the place to do it.

Absolutely, and more. And QP is making exactly that position. What is portrayed on the map can be the lower half of the DRL, and the "long" portion extends up into the Don Valley to join the extant RoW.

Thank you for posting that map, I was intending to do so myself. RER is the future for inter-regional transit, not subways. It seems the *need for subway relief* point is being lost on the subway extension crowd.

The alignment of that tunnel would be better placed under King or Queen, and Y connected each end for both the the Lakeshore and Don Valley/Georgetown Corridors. It would address many of the problems with Union, as I stated prior, including the flat junctions, serve a much greater catchment area, be a lot faster, and offer far more flexibility in routing, and in many cases, with mid-core stations, eliminate the need to use the TTC at all.

If you're biting off very expensive undertakings, then maximize what it does, how effective it is at doing it, and show a business case such that private capital (think Investment Bank) will be willing to build it in partnership with taxpayers.

Due to the size of the project, I'd suggest the eastern section be started first to perform the DRL function, albeit with the northern leg connected to the Don Valley line, immediately relieving the load on Union from that service. Express runs would still continue to Union, 'locals' would do the DRL loop and terminate at Queen/University, just as the present plans for the DRL propose. Once those tunnels are in situ, then the next stage can begin to extend through to the Lakeshore Line each end using the same TBMs westward, and a separate bore from the east to attain the tunnel.

The cost of tunneling and servicing would only be incrementally higher than that of a subway, about the same, as mentioned many times, as the Eglinton Crosstown. Savings would be had by the use of low platforms and less upkeep. The Paris RER with double-decker coaches has a smaller tunnel cross-section than the Eglinton Crosstown.

 

[aquateam]

Which is all true. I don't know why Steve Steve keeps talking about Crossrail in the DRL and Yonge subway threads (I don't have time to read his long-winded posts). Because if he really wants an RER tunnel in Toronto, then this would be the place to do it.


View attachment 104658

View attachment 104659​

Source: Metrolinx Union Station Capacity Study​

Option 6B is really just a way to squeeze more capacity out of Union station. If you want an "RER uber alles" option, you should look at 5

What is portrayed on the map can be the lower half of the DRL, and the "long" portion extends up into the Don Valley to join the extant RoW.

Thank you for posting that map, I was intending to do so myself. RER is the future for inter-regional transit, not subways.

I beg to differ. The DRL (or "Relief Line" as it is now touted) is a *Band Aid Solution* that buys time, and doesn't address the root issue: The Yonge subway being used beyond capacity due to the *catchment area* being so much greater than what the Y-S was ever designed for. How is the "DRL" as now touted going to alleviate that in light of added load already beyond capacity? The DRL has become a *local* cause célèbre to serve the Pape entitlement, not serve the GTHA!

Actually I was just studying
View attachment 104615

View attachment 104616

I find it strange that you have been quoting as evidence studies that directly contradict you. Having a new subway line that absorbs all demand from the East certainly reduces the catchment area of the Yonge subway. You said that the DRL is a "band-aid" solution to Yonge demand, then show this graphic that the DRL long slices off a third of Yonge subway demand. The same study and the same graphic you posted shows that RER does nothing to alleviate overcrowding on Yonge.

RER isn't a replacement for the DRL. The two complement each other as part of a network. The DRL is the "Downtown distributor" studied in that same Metrolinx study that links the entire RER network to points in the city that aren't Union station.

Roads have a hierarchy: highways, arterials, local roads, and all of them are important. In a transit context, we would ideally have the same thing. RER/GO is the regional component, subways are the "arterials", and streetcars/buses serve for the last mile.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Acquire the Midtown tracks and you could build an exact copy of CrossRail from North Pickering to U of T Mississauga.

 

[steveintoronto]

Acquire the Midtown tracks and you could build an exact copy of CrossRail from North Pickering to U of T Mississauga.

Indeed! I suspect this may be closer to being realized than some think. A lot depends on pending developments with the Investment Bank. If The Missing Link becomes a seriously considered project, then almost all of the present studies will have to be greatly altered. The latest reluctance of QP on subway financing might be due to in good part to that....and on the cynical side, the fact that the GTHA will vote for anyone who states to Toronto, rightly or wrongly "No more money". The Missing Link is projected to cost $5B, about the same as the DRL as projected. In both cases I suspect the figure will double for the final figure, but the Missing Link would be vastly more productive in relieving constraints on regional and intra-city transit. It does substitute one pinch-point for another though, and Summerhill is an example. The Yonge Subway wouldn't have the capacity to handle a trainload of arriving passengers. A connecting loop to downtown on the Don Valley CP line would be necessary, and that is why Metrolinx are renewing that RoW. It could then follow the DRL alignment in lieu of subway, a point already made.

The beauty of the Crosstown CP line is that it benefits *everyone*. DRL and the Yonge Street Subway Extension appear to benefit select groups for very questionable value in terms of cost to benefit ratio.

RER isn't a replacement for the DRL. The two complement each other as part of a network. The DRL is the "Downtown distributor" studied in that same Metrolinx study that links the entire RER network to points in the city that aren't Union station.

Good post! Ironically I was just reading the two reports after tracking down Salsa's posting. I'd agree with the DRL subway as figure 36 depicts, save that other analyses have show the western leg is not viable by their criteria.

But things have changed since 2011, not the least the Province's willingness to fund subways, other than their *spoken* commitment to SSE, now even that is in doubt since the Feds have only committed $660,000. Is the Province going to foot the entire bill? Tory claims a sum he will produce. He still hasn't produced funding for SmartTrack stations (and SmartTrack itself will never see the light of day).

I believe a lot has changed since 2011, but I also have faith that all of these studies will be examined by a possible investment proposal, that will come to different conclusions, and 'do more for the same expenditure'....or more likely, fingers crossed...'far more for double the price' and underwrite it themselves.

But to continue along your line of reasoning:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...rdMtg_Relief_Line_Network_Study_Update_EN.pdf

Both these options were chosen then for further study. I doubt that they would now. There will be a consolidation to merge as many of these routings to stone many birds with one kill, and that will also be by using one form of vehicle as much as possible, and the province is stating "RER and LRT" now. No more mention of subways in their present rhetoric.

Btw: Thank you for a considered and detailed post. These issues aren't going to be realized on an iPhone or in 140 character tweets.

Edit to Add: Your posting of Fig 36 shows the Roncesvalles option. That was dismissed as not being viable for reasons I can fully understand, but it makes another point: The King Street Transit Mall would change the surface transport situation markedly for that corridor.

Any new terminus centre core for a DRL service would be wise to engage that Transit Mall, whether King or Queen. Using the University or Yonge subways to connect them is inviting folly.

 

[steveintoronto]

I find it strange that you have been quoting as evidence studies that directly contradict you.

• Even with current improvements, the
Yonge subway will still be at capacity in
2031

That's why. We need solutions that address the cause, not the effect.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

There's more than 1 cause and more than 1 effect and they're all in motion; that's the problem. (And, by extension, more than 1 solution....)

Off the top of my head, causes include:
-not extending the subways along with development after the 1970s
-not reigning in auto-oriented development at the same time
-not building in redundancies for the subway network
-leaving GO as a 905-->416-only network until way too late
-failing to follow through on any kind of regional governance, dating at least to the rejection of the 1995 Golden Report
-failing to introduce any kind of road pricing or other major TDM efforts
-wasting scant resources on wrong or mis-prioritized projects

and so on.

The effects are too numerous to name or list but one of them is definitely what we're seeing at Yonge/Bloor and another is definitely that we've reached the point where we want to do "the right" thing by building suburban TOD but we can't because of 30+ years of neglecting the inner core of the network.

You can't isolate the transit mistakes from the governance mistakes and the growth management mistakes. you can't isolate the solutions either.