[44 North]

OMG, you are so obtuse sometimes it makes it hard for me to be polite and apologize for things; especially when you don't accept and persist with inanities.

Go back and READ what was said: the map shows a proposed alternate route on the southern stretch. Someone else pointed out that the bridges across Sheppard and Finch present obstacles for realigning the tracks to which there was an "LOL! Moving tracks is the easiest!" So, you'll note, my comment was asking how you would move the tracks BETWEEN SHEPPARD AND FINCH, where there are townhomes.

As for my historian hat, please feel free to correct me on any point.

OR, as I requested, please feel free to provide any evidence whatsoever of your ridiculous, made-up and biased assertions and editorializing about internal attitudes at Metrolinx (e.g. they were "lukewarm" to this or "begrudgingly" did that) when it's clear - subject to correction - you actually have no idea.

Speaking of which, this is a news story and not a primary source but Metrolinx definitely was looking at RER on the RH corridor.

Apart from the Barrie line, Metrolinx also has plans to implement all-day, two-way service on the Richmond Hill line, from Union to Richmond Hill Station, and the Stouffville line, from Union to Mount Joy Station, within the 15-year plan, Mr. Ostler said.

But maybe he was saying it begrudingly, eh? Maybe it was always just a lukewarm idea.

Ok but that's a Metrolinx map so save the lols for them. Two tracks b/n Sheppard and Finch is obviously a nonissue. And I already wrote about the RL two pages ago. Your reply was a continuation of crafted history and the usual irrelevant tirades like going on about Tory being some kind of ogre, so it was ignored. As for that link you unearthed, like I said AD2W (which isn't RER).

 

[salsa]

They'll move it over, just as they will with the West Toronto Railpath.

Sure, but the NIMBYs will still flip out over the idea of having trains trundling through their neighbourhood. And like most wealthy areas in this city, they have abundant political representation at city hall.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sure, but the NIMBYs will still flip out over the idea of having trains trundling through their neighbourhood. And like most wealthy areas in this city, they have strong political representation at city hall.

It's a fair point, but Metrolinx is pretty stalwart when it comes to standing their legal ground. (As the recent Mississauga broo-ha shows https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ing-bus-station-beside-mississauga-homes.html )

Your comment is serendipity meets synchronicity, as I was just discussing how the Canada Trail is going to have to reside with the HFR alignment along the old O&Q alignment.

In the US, this is not only common now, it's promoted!

I'll just post the first four hits Googling to make the point:
America's Rails-with-Trails | Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
https://www.railstotrails.org/resource-library/resources/americas-rails-with-trails/
Sep 1, 2013 - Fifteen percent of the active rails-with-trails identified in this study are located adjacent to mass transit corridors. The vast majority of the rails-with-trails interviewed for this report are insured by an existing local umbrella policy, similar to most rail-trails and greenways.
Rail-with-Trail | Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
https://www.railstotrails.org/build-trails/trail-building-toolbox/.../rail-with-trail/
Trail users and trains safely coexist on a rail-with-trail section of the Chehalis Western Trail in Washington State. — Photo CC Rails-to-Trails Conservancy.
Rails with trails - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rails_with_trails
A 1996 study of safety on rails with trails in the United States evaluated 37 existing RWTs in 16 states and concluded that "active railroad lines can function with an adjacent pedestrian, horse, and bike path without problem" and RWTs are "no more dangerous than rail-trails alone or next to busy streets."
[PDF]Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned - Trans Canada Trail Ontario
www.tctontario.ca/library/.../Rails%20With%20Trails%20-%20Lessons%20Learned.p...
'Rail-with-trail' (RWT) describesanyshared use path or trail located on or directly adjacent to an active railroad corridor. About 65 RWTs encompass 385km (239 ...

And like most wealthy areas in this city, they have strong political representation at city hall.

There's a real political irony to that at this point in time: The balance has shifted to "not Torontonians" who'll be all too ready to make the point of how "Torontonians get coddled, while we get screwed".

Edit: In digging on this, I've changed my view on the Leaside Spur as to how wise or not the investment would be compared to the costs of double tracking and raising the present alignment in the valley.

Discussion here:
https://stevemunro.ca/2014/02/15/metrolinx-contemplates-relief-2/

And City info here:
https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_tor...ervices/cycling/files/pdf/project1-notice.pdf

 

[smallspy]

Yeah... Multi-use trails are technically "transportation". But let's be real here... Do you think there's any chance that the city will remove a park and multi-use trail to build a new railway? The fact that it's technically possible doesn't mean that it's feasible or reasonable.

Well, considering that the City purchased the corridor specifically to allow for a railway to be put back in......I don't know. Maybe you should ask them?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[amnesiajune]

Well, considering that the City purchased the corridor specifically to allow for a railway to be put back in......I don't know. Maybe you should ask them?

I'd start by asking what the city of Toronto is going to do with a railway, considering that Go Transit is provincially owned and operated. Then I'd probably ask why the city bought this land for a railway that they have no use for, and used it to build a multi-use trail that connects two major parks.

 

[44 North]

Sure, but the NIMBYs will still flip out over the idea of having trains trundling through their neighbourhood. And like most wealthy areas in this city, they have abundant political representation at city hall.

Yea I have a hard time envisioning it for this reason. It'd obviously work well, but people practically have their back gardens built into the trail now. And they got lots of money and power.

I'd start by asking what the city of Toronto is going to do with a railway, considering that Go Transit is provincially owned and operated. Then I'd probably ask why the city bought this land for a railway that they have no use for, and used it to build a multi-use trail that connects two major parks.

Not sure but I think it's possible they were planning some kind of transit on there. There was a period where a bus rapid transit line was to be provide relief that I think Lastman was backing, and there are corridors like Redway Rd that could be extended to connect Bayview to the Spur.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Ok but that's a Metrolinx map so save the lols for them. Two tracks b/n Sheppard and Finch is obviously a nonissue. And I already wrote about the RL two pages ago. Your reply was a continuation of crafted history and the usual irrelevant tirades like going on about Tory being some kind of ogre, so it was ignored. As for that link you unearthed, like I said AD2W (which isn't RER).

I must confess, I'm LOLing at myself a bit because I had no idea what you mean by AD2W though it's hugely obvious now. Is this an actual acronym or did you just invent it? How are we defining all-day two-way vs. RER; frequency, I presume? I think that was always a TBD thing. I don't recall, as the RER plans started gearing up , that being a presumption as much as an evolution (and I think - but you can correct me - you've implied they almost purposely didn't lean on RER, since they were pushing the subway...)

I don't think Tory is an ogre - just a disappointment who tries to do what he actually thinks is "the right thing most people want," to the point where he's doing non-sensical things. Maybe I just resent being fooled by his "we're building a NETWORK in Scarborough!" thing and I'll feel better when he finds ELRT funding again. Until then, I don't care much for his opinions on what constitutes proper transit priorities.

In the meantime, I was laying out a sequence of events I felt you misrepsented, not a crafted history. You were making assertions about Metrolinx you could not know, unless you work there (which I'm pretty certain you don't). At the end of the day it's a big old mess with various people at the city and province acting like jerks at various times.

As to the matter at the centre of recent discussions: it's an interesting idea to think about but there are a bunch of reasons it's highly unlikely to approach reality.

 

[nfitz]

Yes. Yonge North also has a higher ridership projection than the city's proposed Relief Line.

North of Finch? Hmm, which set of estimates - there have been so many ...

The original Big Move modelling - which I think was the first to include both, put the AM peak point per direction ridership at 17,500 for the DRL (Pape/Danforth to Dundas West via Queen) compared to 8,800 for the Yonge Extension.

Now, that's longer than Phase 1, but I don't think the peak point will change that much, as I assume it's westbound between Moss Park and Yonge; it will certainly reduce, but I'd assume that most people would get off either at Queen or Osgoode.

Now, I'm sure the new modelling has improved the accuracy of the estimates, and there are new 2031 and even 2041 predictions available of the underlying socio-economic and demographic forecasts. But I'd be surprised that it's changed so much that the one was double the other, is now smaller.

Not that I disbelieve you, I'm just wondering what you are looking at.

Now that's peak point. Obviously the total daily ridership changes a lot, given that the initial DRL is half the size as originally modelled.

But at the same time, they now seem to be pushing Phase 2 (to at least Eglinton) harder ... which would only increase the peak point ridership.

 

[micheal_can]

Once they extend the line north, what will happen to all that parking and the bus loops? They will not need nearly as much.

 

[Voltz]

Once they extend the line north, what will happen to all that parking and the bus loops? They will not need nearly as much.

The Finch parking lots and YRT/GO bus terminals are in a hydro corridor, so there is not much else they could be used for, maybe that bus terminal would be reduced in size.

 

[darth_freeman]

Yonge subway ridership is forecasted to be dramatically higher than the DRL due to the anticipated development in the corridor.

From http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...ts_Case-Yonge_North_Subway_Extension_2013.pdf

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The Finch parking lots and YRT/GO bus terminals are in a hydro corridor, so there is not much else they could be used for, maybe that bus terminal would be reduced in size.

Once they extend the line north, what will happen to all that parking and the bus loops? They will not need nearly as much.

Terminus for the Finch West LRT.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Ridership comparisons are a bit besides the point as the 2 lines serve different functions. Kinda like asking whether the best NHL defenceman will get more goals than the best forward.

YNSE will generate ridership. DRL will create the capacity to facilitate it.

 

[micheal_can]

The Finch parking lots and YRT/GO bus terminals are in a hydro corridor, so there is not much else they could be used for, maybe that bus terminal would be reduced in size.

Terminus for the Finch West LRT.

The TTC bus terminal is across the street, not within the hydro corridor. I wonder what they could sell it off as for condo development. It would even have an entrance to the Subway(albeit, one that would have to have fare gates put in.).

 

[nfitz]

Yonge subway ridership is forecasted to be dramatically higher than the DRL due to the anticipated development in the corridor.

The 2008 Metrolinx modelling and York's 2013 Yonge North modelling shouldn't be that much different in terms of 2031 modelling - they should pretty much be using the same data set (the newer set including 2041 hadn't been released yet ... though was there another one just up to 2036 in between?). So why does the York study show over 3 times more ridership.

Looking at the Metrolinx results, one possibility is they included an express rail service from Richmond Hill to Union (project 47) in addition to the all-day existing GO service to Richmond Hill (and points beyond - projects 10 and 11). And given that express line has a ridership of 32 million a year (with only 2 million a year left on the current GO service), I think they may have made that trip much faster than possible - and who knows what unrealistic links they assumed with the Eglinton and Bloor lines.

Which would also have drained away a lot of the subway service ... which may be totally unrealistic.

A table of all the various estimates, in one document, would be interesting to see.