[Amare]

That interpretation is a simplification but not totally off-base. The report said that RER and ATO and the opening of the Spadina extension provide sufficient capacity relief to allow the extension to move forward without the extra relief the DRL provides. That's in the short term. Obviously the DRL is still needed but its importance is substantially mitigated by all the other stuff going on.

Many of the claim's in that report are complete hogwash and BS, and they (York Region) are trying every thing in their power to fast track the extention. It's a little ironic, because Metrolinx has also came out and said that even with the addition with a DRL (whatever the routing may be), the Yonge line will be in the exact same situation in 20-30 years. This is the same DRL that would relieve the Yonge line substantially more, then increased service on the Richmond Hill line. So if Yonge line will be at capacity again in 20-30 years with the DRL in place, I dont think it's fair to say that the Spadina extension, RER and ATO will allow for sufficient capacity on the Yonge line to allow for it's extension to RH in 10 years.

The Yonge line is already 10-15% over capacity and the additional growth that we will see in 10 years in the downtown core will swallow any "relief" that is seen with the Spadina extension and ATO.

 

[44 North]

While it is understandable that York Region councillors care about their political careers and want to push the subway, it is in-conscionable that they can be so blind (or purposely ignorant) to the situation outside of their region. I only hope that Metrolinx has the strength to delay this extension until after a DRL is built. Otherwise we are SOL up the creek without a paddle.

During the Relief Line public meetings I made it a point to prod and ask staff the right questions about Metrolinx's commitment to the RL, and the Prov's willingness to work alongside the City/TTC. The answer I was given (or at least I interpreted) is that Metrolinx seldom meets with the TTC/City, does so only briefly, and doesn't like sharing info. If they were committed to the RL, and the City's idea of what an actual Relief Line entails, I think they'd be on board with Toronto's plans and that it would be a joint venture by now. Their seeming standoffishness and possible close-door attitude shows me that they don't want a joint venture, nor do they want TO's idea of a Relief Line. I'd genuinely be interested in hearing info that shows otherwise, but I think it remains to be seen.

The way I see it is that Metrolinx and York Region are on one side (the side pushing for extending TO's subway into York Region ASAP + offering the bare minimum in quick-fix relief), whereas the City of Toronto is naturally on the logical side of finally building a proper DRL. When you look at the history, this seems to make sense. The Prov and Metrolinx/GTTA didn't want the DRL built at all (e.g MoveOntario2020), then later planned for the DRL to be built sometime in/after a quarter century (Big Move 1.0). It was only after TO played hardball did they move a vague notion of a "relief line" into their 15yr window (Big Move 2.0). It's almost as if those pushing hard for Yonge North are still living in the previous decade of ample funds and fanciful/questionable plans, and haven't yet acknowledged the extremely high cost of their project, or the effect of extending a city's subway line (that reached capacity 30yrs ago).

RER has changed the game (and SmartTrack, FWIW) in terms of the downstream capacity issues. With population growth obviously that's only temporary but it's still significant (as is Metrolinx's claim that adding RER to the Richmond Hill line would do very little to attract subway-needing riders from RH/Thornhill).

Lol, "the game". Re: RER on the RH line. It's been both common knowledge and a unanimous agreement for years that the existing RH GO route is of little use and would have low ridership. The Yonge North study concluded this years ago, so it shouldn't be a 'significant claim' that the recent YRNS report concluded the same thing. One, with the current routing there'd be nothing "express" about it...it's a slow and circuitous route. Two, there's no opportunity for stations between Oriole (Sheppard) and Union. Three, electrified RER wouldn't be built in a flood-prone floodplain. All in all, the current alignment would never work as RER. So obviously it wouldn't attract "subway-needing riders" - whether they're from TO or Thornhill.

Basically the corridor needs realignment (+ grade-separation at Doncaster and at Midtown) in order to become RER. This is possible, but we'll never know its ridership projection with these remedies because it hasn't been looked at since the 80s, and was absent from the Yonge North study. So I think it's safe to say that Metrolinx kinda stacked the deck against RH RER. Why? Maybe it was feared that a realigned RH corridor would lower the dubiously high / shaky ridership projections for the York Region section of Yonge North. This is the only logical conclusion I can think of as to why it's been ignored all these years. So I'd say RER has only "changed the game" insofar as the Prov wants it to change the game.

 

[dowlingm]

I think there are two issues standing in the way of betting too much on Richmond Hill - flood protection in the approach to the USRC especially after that train got flooded some time back, and CN retaining control of the line north of Doncaster.

 

[44 North]

I think there are two issues standing in the way of betting too much on Richmond Hill - flood protection in the approach to the USRC especially after that train got flooded some time back, and CN retaining control of the line north of Doncaster.

Yes, the stretch between the Don Branch (just north of Gerrard) and USRC is of concern. As is the section north of Doncaster. Thing is though, I'd like for a formal study to either prove or disprove any potential. As it stands, the whole thing has been ignored outright, which I don't think is fair (whether it's for studying Yonge North's ridership, or any study of "relief" as part of YRNS). Obviously the existing routing of the RH corridor from Oriole to USRC is a write-off and unworthy of being fixed or invested in, but it's points re: realignment from this 1986 study that I think are worth looking at https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/rhstudyjune1986.pdf

This isn't some amateur fantasy idea, the merits and potential exist - they just haven't been looked at in 30yrs. And considering that RER has become a game-changer of sorts and has reemerged on the Prov's radar, I think it's worth looking into again. Naturally 1.5km of flood protection (or elevation, or interlining with a DRL) from the Don Branch at Gerrard to USRC is more fixable than attempting to fix the existing slow circuitous remote sections of the RH corridor south of Sheppard.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

During the Relief Line public meetings I made it a point to prod and ask staff the right questions about Metrolinx's commitment to the RL, and the Prov's willingness to work alongside the City/TTC. The answer I was given (or at least I interpreted) is that Metrolinx seldom meets with the TTC/City, does so only briefly, and doesn't like sharing info.

Same ol, same ol. I'm for the extension, you're against it (at least in its proposed form) and round and round it goes.

The way I see it is that Metrolinx and York Region are on one side (the side pushing for extending TO's subway into York Region ASAP + offering the bare minimum in quick-fix relief), whereas the City of Toronto is naturally on the logical side of finally building a proper DRL.

This is pure spin. Metrolinx's "side" is to look at the big picture of regional planning. That's not the TTC's job and it's a good thing because they are piss poor at it. Metrolinx isn't infallible and they need to be restructured, IMHO, but it's still their job.

It's a real stretch to say Toronto is 'naturally on the logical side' of pushing for the DRL. That wasn't true under David Miller and it wasn't true under Rob Ford either and it's hard to argue - despite Keesmaat et al pushing forward with it - that it's true under Tory either. It ONLY became an issue when the yonge extension ended up on their plate and, yes, it was Metrolinx (then joined by YR) who put it there.

Metrolinx has no real power over TTC and what you describe in terms of them not interacting isn't just a TTC-Metrolinx problem; it's a multi-issue, multi-municipality problem. Fact is, TORONTO prioritized Transit City and so Metrolinx put the DRL on their long-term list. When TORONTO asked them to move it up to the 15-year list, they did. If TORONTO had chosen to prioritize it over Scarborough over SmartTrack and Metrolinx didn't agree, then you could harp on this but that's the opposite of what's happened so even if it's true Metrolinx is "disinterested" in the DRL, there's no blame to be directed their way yet. All the rest of your talk is just revisionist history, as if TO has been promoting DRL forever to deaf ears. Not the case at all. And I say that as someone who has long said they should have built the DRL years ago, but they CHOOSE not to, and now RER and SmartTrack are altering its significance.

(I think it's actually laughable how TO planning is working on the DRL and Ford's subway is moving along and now SmartTrack and there has been almost no work to actually figure out how they interface or what the cumulative impact is. I, for one am thankful Metrolinx is actually doing this kind of work.)

It's almost as if those pushing hard for Yonge North are still living in the previous decade of ample funds and fanciful/questionable plans, and haven't yet acknowledged the extremely high cost of their project, or the effect of extending a city's subway line (that reached capacity 30yrs ago).

And it's almost as if those against it are ignoring the Hydro sale and the funds specifically earmarked for transit coming out of it. You're exaggerating the cost and the "effect."

Re: RER on the RH line. It's been both common knowledge and a unanimous agreement for years that the existing RH GO route is of little use and would have low ridership.

Really? And yet how many times have I seen, on this very forum, person after person saying that Richmond Hill doesn't NEED a subway; that adding RER there will serve all their needs just fine?

The Yonge North study concluded this years ago, so it shouldn't be a 'significant claim' that the recent YRNS report concluded the same thing. One, with the current routing there'd be nothing "express" about it...it's a slow and circuitous route. Two, there's no opportunity for stations between Oriole (Sheppard) and Union. Three, electrified RER wouldn't be built in a flood-prone floodplain. All in all, the current alignment would never work as RER. So obviously it wouldn't attract "subway-needing riders" - whether they're from TO or Thornhill.

I totally agree! but even if it's a rare point of agreement for you and I (and pretty obvious, just looking at a map) it's one of the arguments brought to bear against the extension by others.

your realingment proposal strikes me as dubious but, quite honestly, I have no clue how viable it is. I can only infer based on how little people at Metrolinx and elsewhere have looked at it how unviable it must be. Occam's Razor prevents me from agreeing with your suggestion that it's being ignored as part of a pro-Yonge-North conspiracy, however.

Anyway, overall, the report's conclusions make sense to me: RER eliminates the immediate need for DRL and removes that singular obstacle to the Yonge extension. But that's not to say that a DRL (even a more ambitious route than Toronto has been looking at) is needed not long after. The question has never really been whether it's needed but whether it's a pre-requisite for the extension and that's how RER has changed the "game," which is a figure of speech, by the way.

 

[rbt]

Really? And yet how many times have I seen, on this very forum, person after person saying that Richmond Hill doesn't NEED a subway; that adding RER there will serve all their needs just fine?

I have no issue with the Yonge extension, it's one of the few valid subway expenditures. I'd still like to see what an assumed $4B spending on Richmond Hill line would do to ridership projections.

The studies on Richmond Hill GO/RER service thus far have basically assumed nothing changes except a couple of additional trains. Lets see what models kick out if the RH line is straightened (tunnel under Leaside Spur Trail), improve TTC integration (Sheppard and Eglinton lines), boost frequencies to 4/5 minutes all day long, and make it a $3 fare with free transfers to local transit on both ends (use net present value for 50 years operations subsidies, set it aside from the $4B capital budget).

Now how does ridership compare? Exactly what feature(s) of the RH line makes it so unfavourable compared to a Yonge extension, and why is it impractical to change them? Not being under Yonge might be it, but that doesn't bode well for Metrolinx's long DRL ridership projection which also does not run under Yonge.

Even at similar capital cost, an optimized Richmond Hill line drives far deeper into York Region and ought to be able to serve far York Region residents.

 

[44 North]

This is pure spin. Metrolinx's "side" is to look at the big picture of regional planning. That's not the TTC's job and it's a good thing because they are piss poor at it. Metrolinx isn't infallible and they need to be restructured, IMHO, but it's still their job.

It's a real stretch to say Toronto is 'naturally on the logical side' of pushing for the DRL. That wasn't true under David Miller and it wasn't true under Rob Ford either and it's hard to argue - despite Keesmaat et al pushing forward with it - that it's true under Tory either. It ONLY became an issue when the yonge extension ended up on their plate and, yes, it was Metrolinx (then joined by YR) who put it there.

Metrolinx has no real power over TTC and what you describe in terms of them not interacting isn't just a TTC-Metrolinx problem; it's a multi-issue, multi-municipality problem. Fact is, TORONTO prioritized Transit City and so Metrolinx put the DRL on their long-term list. When TORONTO asked them to move it up to the 15-year list, they did. If TORONTO had chosen to prioritize it over Scarborough over SmartTrack and Metrolinx didn't agree, then you could harp on this but that's the opposite of what's happened so even if it's true Metrolinx is "disinterested" in the DRL, there's no blame to be directed their way yet. All the rest of your talk is just revisionist history, as if TO has been promoting DRL forever to deaf ears. Not the case at all. And I say that as someone who has long said they should have built the DRL years ago, but they CHOOSE not to, and now RER and SmartTrack are altering its significance.

Metrolinx hasn't agreed to the City/TTC's relief line criteria. If you can find proof that they do agree, by all means. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find it. And until Metrolinx does state that they agree with and support it (just as they've done on a whim with numerous other municipal projects), I'd say they're disinterested.

(I think it's actually laughable how TO planning is working on the DRL and Ford's subway is moving along and now SmartTrack and there has been almost no work to actually figure out how they interface or what the cumulative impact is. I, for one am thankful Metrolinx is actually doing this kind of work.)

DRTES started under Miller got delayed by a municipal election, but it picked up again halfway through the Ford era. It seems that it's moving along relatively smoothly.

And it's almost as if those against it are ignoring the Hydro sale and the funds specifically earmarked for transit coming out of it. You're exaggerating the cost and the "effect."

The effect (overcapacity, lack of network redundancy) is notorious. The cost ($4.6bn) is much higher than previously claimed - not to mention much higher than your claim that it'd somehow still cost a mere $3bn. Its high cost and use of finite future funds is integral to the discussion.

Really? And yet how many times have I seen, on this very forum, person after person saying that Richmond Hill doesn't NEED a subway; that adding RER there will serve all their needs just fine?

I don't quite know what you're saying here, but it's the existing RH route - more specifically, the section between Sheppard and USRC - that is a borderline write-off and which requires realignment in order to be of considerable use. I haven't really seen anyone on this forum support adding RER to the existing route.

I totally agree! but even if it's a rare point of agreement for you and I (and pretty obvious, just looking at a map) it's one of the arguments brought to bear against the extension by others.

your realingment proposal strikes me as dubious but, quite honestly, I have no clue how viable it is. I can only infer based on how little people at Metrolinx and elsewhere have looked at it how unviable it must be. Occam's Razor prevents me from agreeing with your suggestion that it's being ignored as part of a pro-Yonge-North conspiracy, however.

Again, the existing RH route doesn't work. And this realignment I've brought up isn't 'mine', but the Prov's (from the '86 report I showed dowlingm, as well as a few maps over the decades). Now, it's entirely possible that this realignment simply will not work and that I'm merely wasting energy talking about it. But there are a couple reasons why I think it's viable:

One, part of the Big Move is to bring RER to the RH line. However I'm almost certain they will not be able to achieve this due to the problematic Sheppard-Union section of the existing route, and the aforementioned issues re: circuitous routing, flooding, lack of station opportunities, etc. The only logical way around this issue is realignment. The most logical realignment is the 1986 routing. If RER can't be brought to the RH corridor, and won't be - just as a few projects in the Big Move have been dropped - then it's obvious the Big Move has some serious flaws.

Two, it's speculated on my part (because the recent YRNS was rather vague in their details), but I do believe corridors which could otherwise be used for a realignment of the RH line are instead being looked at for the Option 3 (LRT) "relief" idea. If so, it's possible the 1986 realignment is still valid - but rather than being considered for an RHC-Union RER, it's instead selectively being looked at for a Sheppard-Union LRT. But this is just speculation, so who's to know.

Anyway, overall, the report's conclusions make sense to me: RER eliminates the immediate need for DRL and removes that singular obstacle to the Yonge extension. But that's not to say that a DRL (even a more ambitious route than Toronto has been looking at) is needed not long after. The question has never really been whether it's needed but whether it's a pre-requisite for the extension and that's how RER has changed the "game," which is a figure of speech, by the way.

I dunno dude. I guess you and I have inherent biases. But any way I look at it, RER doesn't eliminate the immediate need for the DRL. DRL is needed first.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Now how does ridership compare? Exactly what feature(s) of the RH line makes it so unfavourable compared to a Yonge extension, and why is it impractical to change them? Not being under Yonge might be it, but that doesn't bode well for Metrolinx's long DRL ridership projection which also does not run under Yonge.

Even at similar capital cost, an optimized Richmond Hill line drives far deeper into York Region and ought to be able to serve far York Region residents.

There's several variables at work and the most obvious is that, all things being equal, you have one line that runs straight down Yonge and another the takes a valley route to Union. Yes, the DRL also doesn't run under Yonge but it's a totally different situation, geographically.

The RH line (as I don't think has been much discussed here) currently ends at Major Mac but is being extended north. In that sense, yes, it would seem to serve more riders but even even if it goes to Aurora, it's only serving riders going to Union Station. Moreover, because of the development patterns, there's more ridership to be harnessed immediately near Yonge from Steeles to Highway 7 (particularly given the planned development in the growth centre) vs. driving commuter trains further up into more sprawling areas of the region.

DRTES started under Miller got delayed by a municipal election, but it picked up again halfway through the Ford era. It seems that it's moving along relatively smoothly.

Meh, it starts and stops every few years since, like, the 1950s. I'm pro-DRL, all things being equal, but TO always seems to have some other priority.

We're speculating about to what degree Metrolinx "cares" about the DRL. All I can say is that they've acceded to TO's requests so far and (assuming there was money), I suspect it would be near the front of the line if council actually approved it etc. It remains to be seen whether that's in the plans, how much Tory has to gerrymander Scarborough to fit in SmartTrack etc.

The effect (overcapacity, lack of network redundancy) is notorious. The cost ($4.6bn) is much higher than previously claimed - not to mention much higher than your claim that it'd somehow still cost a mere $3bn. Its high cost and use of finite future funds is integral to the discussion.

I've never said I still think $3B is valid. $4.5-5B seems a reasonable guess. Obviously the longer you wait, the more it costs. in 2021 I suspect $6B will be more reasonable. Still, I bet $3B is closer to the actual cost than $8B is to the actual cost of SmartTrack...

Again, the existing RH route doesn't work. And this realignment I've brought up isn't 'mine', but the Prov's (from the '86 report I showed dowlingm, as well as a few maps over the decades). Now, it's entirely possible that this realignment simply will not work and that I'm merely wasting energy talking about it. But there are a couple reasons why I think it's viable:

A plan from 1986 ain't much but I'll say this: if they're looking at RER for RH, it should include all options, including potential realignments. It's a bit of a unique GO line because of the valley and if there's a way to mitigate it, sure, let's hear it. I still think the main point is that even increased service and better routing will largely provide Union-RH service and therefore a totally different market than the one potentially served by the subway.

All these conclusions are based on modelling and speculation....Metrolinx says the DRL is not an immediate need/priority and much of their logic strikes me as sound. Doesn't mean they're right, but it's hard to know for sure as long as we're in the present.

 

[rbt]

There's several variables at work and the most obvious is that, all things being equal, you have one line that runs straight down Yonge and another the takes a valley route to Union. Yes, the DRL also doesn't run under Yonge but it's a totally different situation, geographically.

The RH line (as I don't think has been much discussed here) currently ends at Major Mac but is being extended north. In that sense, yes, it would seem to serve more riders but even even if it goes to Aurora, it's only serving riders going to Union Station. Moreover, because of the development patterns, there's more ridership to be harnessed immediately near Yonge from Steeles to Highway 7 (particularly given the planned development in the growth centre) vs. driving commuter trains further up into more sprawling areas of the region.

It is a valley route to Union that could intersect many of the same perpendicular services that Yonge does with similar transfer efficiency.

The question is, how many Yonge extension passengers are going to destinations on Yonge north of Eglinton? If it is a very large majority, then why is increased capacity important? If most are going downtown, why is $4B expanding Yonge line better than $4B implementing a real Richmond Hill line?

Lets say it costs $1.5B to tunnel under the Leaside Spur trail which straightens the line, how many would benefit from a $2B tunnel from Don Valley straight across to Adelaide and Yonge? $4B buys a ton of creativity but I haven't seen much if any creativity from Metrolinx in a long time. The DRL funds buys even more creativity for solving the corridor capacity issues.

I have a hard time believing the DRL to Sheppard can be so effective at removing passengers from Yonge but a line 500m to the west with similar characteristics (frequency, price, stops north of Eglinton at all major streets) would be a failure.


I really want to know what the technical issues are as I strongly suspect they are strictly political.

 

[EnviroTO]

The Richmond Hill line isn't aligned well and isn't at a good elevation. The line is subject to flooding, is a significant distance both vertically and horizontally from Castle Frank station and Broadview, isn't well situated at Eglinton but as you say from a east-west to north-south transfer point in this case isn't as significant an issue, and the route is indirect. I would suspect it is the flood protection costs associated with creating critical mass transit infrastructure in a river valley that would drive up costs to the point that when compared to other routings the cost-benefit analysis no longer favours the Richmond Hill line. The DRL routing would not only capture east-west to north-south transfers but stimulate ridership and local development and despite the Richmond Hill line looking like the cheap way to implement mass transit on the surface, electrified rail and mass transit built in the flood plain, away from development, and in a less pedestrian friendly environment might not be the best investment.

All that said, the plan is to increase service on the Richmond Hill line, but north of the city the line is owned by CN so there are limitations to service there which are the same impediments that prevent RER to Cooksville or beyond Bramalea, just to a lesser extent because the freight traffic is less on the CN Bala subdivision.

 

[44 North]

With the realignment that rbt is talking about, the only area where flooding would be an issue is from just south of Bloor to USRC (<2km). This is much more optimal than the current RH line alignment where basically the entire winding route (~15km) from Lawrence and USRC is flood-prone. This Metro map from '94 is pretty useful for giving the gist of the idea. The existing RH line isn't highlighted, but you can see how a realignment would look.

What's also interesting on the map is an idea similar to Transit City's Don Mills LRT, and possibly Metrolinx's Option 3 LRT. At Leslie/Eglinton, a rapid transit route (either bus or LRT) would use a (currently nonexistent) Leslie extension + Redway Rd extension to get to Bayview, and from there into the core. In the DMLRT study, an idea like this was talked about briefly. As well, I recall reading a report for a new trunk sewer in the Don Valley where it made a note about a potential LRT stop/Castle Frank interchange in the playing field for Rosedale Heights School of the Arts.

IMO any idea such as this doesn't work because a) it'd be flood prone from Pottery Rd all the way to Front St, b) connecting to Castle Frank would be ridiculously long and convoluted, and c) lack of any kind of development opportunity immediately around Castle Frank wouldn't make it worthwhile.

Mod - removed broken image link

 

[TheTigerMaster]

York Region might need to start planning of for a delay in the arrival of the Yonge North Subway Extension, seeing that Yonge Line ridership will be above capacity well into the future, even with current relief plans implement.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Well, when you have a finished EA sitting on the shelf for five years I think you've already accepted the concept of "delay."
But politics is probably the bigger issue than capacity; that and money. The latter is always a challenge but in regards to the former, YR probably doesn't punch above its weight anymore, the way it used to when Bill Fisch was running the show.

It's good to see TO moving the ball forward, transitwise, but it doesn't count for much if it's not part of a bigger regional network or if it's just one more good-looking map that quickly gets thrown out. We'll see what happens with Big Move 2.0 and how all these things dovetail, and how they all get funded.

 

[jaycola]

Looking at the map, while it appears that the Yonge subway extension has been shelved, Toronto would never feature it on their "plans" since it is not something Toronto wants as much as something being imposed upon them. Note that the HWY 7 Busway is also labled "additional RT" while the nature of this project is fully known. The province can't simply ignore transit in this corridor seeing as it is a priority in the planning of Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill, not to mention Toronto's own Yonge North planning study.

 

[nfitz]

Looking at the map, while it appears that the Yonge subway extension has been shelved, Toronto would never feature it on their "plans"...

The figure you show has the Yonge extension on it.