kettal
Banned
But the Express subway we are discussing here will make no difference to trips around NYCC or midtown.
|
|
|
- Thread starter West Toronto Junction
- Start date
But the Express subway we are discussing here will make no difference to trips around NYCC or midtown.
Dan416
Senior Member
Even as a subway advocate, I cannot get behind this idea. I'd much rather build a new line elsewhere than give Yonge Street gold-plated service while the rest of Toronto starves for rapid transit.
drum118
Superstar
I agree as you need to intercept the ridership further to the east to take the load off Yonge as that where it coming from in the first place. Don Mills from Sheppard to the Core as the DRL.
West Toronto Junction
New Member
More thoughts on the Y.E.S. 2009-12-12
Sorry I've been preoccupied for quite a while with other things. Many many thanks to Miskaton for re-starting up the discussion with a map of the concept.
I'd like to make some responses to specific comments and some general remarks. This will be a long post and so I'll leave responses the later specific comments until the next time.
(1) Red Rocket 191 says:
"Good of you for dreaming, but the big question remains:
Why Queen?
Why (Insert whatever station you end up selecting)?"
(2) Second in pie comments:
"I see how it could work. But would it not make more sense to run the YUS as it is currently, but with an express train south of Eglinton? Essentially the same as the current TTC map, but with the blue "express line" from Eglinton to Union. I figure that way, people can get off their train if they want a quick trip downtown, but can stay on if they want a stop between Eglinton and Bloor. I guess it would do a good job of cutting the subway into more manageable slices though... "
(3) Chuck says:
"I'm a huge proponent of express subways, but I just don't think that the time is right today. Express subways are justified when a city is already saturated with subway lines, but still suffers from overcrowding. With everyone already served by a local stop, and no corridors lacking a subway line, that's when enhancements to existing lines make sense.
Having said that, recognize too that the Yonge line already is, by New York standards at least, a true express line north of Eglinton. Express lines in NY generally bypass 2 out of 3 stations, and are about 2 km apart. That is exactly what the Yonge line does north of Eglinton when compared to the section downtown."
(1) Why Queen? The original post said "either under, beside, or near their existing counterparts". The idea is to get support for having the concept tested further by those with the resources to do a formal evaluation. The exact station location is something to discuss as we craft scenarios for analysis. Eglinton, Bloor, and Union are included by definition because of the requirement for transfer to/from other local or express rapid transit services. "Queen" is included because there is probably enough passenger flow in the CBD to need a second distribution point, not just Union. The Y.E.S. tunnel would be somewhere near the existing Yonge Subway tunnel, but probably deeper. A platform located between Queen and King would have escalators angling up and would probably connect to both those stations and add additional capacity to access the PATH system, perhaps in several places. The exact location is trade off between the on civil engineering considerations of underground downtown (the costs) and passenger access (the benefits). Any plan for higher-order service along an east-west alignment (say Queen) would suggest that at least one end of the Y.E.S. second distributor station be connected to that east-west alignment.
(2) "people can get off their train if they want a quick trip downtown" Second in pie is correct that I've assumed the optimum service arrangement is that the northern services becomes the express while the local terminates at Eglinton. But yes, the infrastructure design would allow this to be set up either way. I'm happy to acknowledge that the service pattern over the infrastructure needs to be optimised for passenger convenience in any scenario we investigate.
(3) "With everyone already served by a local stop" This suggests there is little differentiation in the geography of travel demand. I do agree that there is a "floor" of service that applies everywhere in order to provide accessibility in all locations. This is a public policy goal that has nothing to do with location specific demand. However the investigation I am recommending here would consider the actual and estimated future demand for this service in this corridor and we'd have to see if the benefits would outweigh the costs.
I agree with Chuck that the Yonge Subway north of Eglinton is very much like the express subway or regional metro station spacing like New York, Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Line 14 in Paris, etc. It is this concatenation of 1940's design and 1970's design that opens up the opportunity to upgrade the 1940's portion by duplication and have a long length of regional metro.
General remarks
I've proposed this concept to suggest that we test exactly those issues that people keep raising: it would be very expensive, it would be additional investment in an existing corridor, it would be roughly parallel to other options.
As I said in the original post, a Y.E.S. would match regional-scale north-south demand with speedy attractive service along a proven activity corridor. It would be compared against a regional express train in the Don Valley (the parallel option) and against the DRL (the right-angled option).
Finally a historical digression (indulge me) from Toronto for another transportation mode. Highway 401 was originally built as a six lane freeway (three lanes each direction). As more east-west demand developed the province doubled the size of the existing facility. The alternative would have been to build another six lane freeway parallel to the original, say through the hydro corridor north of Finch Ave. As sections were opened up Toronto vied with Chicago to see which city had the longest 12 lane freeway in the world. In Los Angles the philosophy was different; LA has many six lane freeways but no 12 laners. Would highway planners say Toronto and Chicago got better transportation outcomes from concentrating their investments than LA did with spreading its investments? It probably depends on the starting point of their transportation geographies. Yonge Street is the most heavily used transit corridor in Canada. The starting point of our transit geography may be closer to the Toronto and Chicago highway examples than to the LA highway example.
I think the Y.E.S. is worth investigation when we do the north-south analysis (beyond the inadequate Metrolinx "North Yonge Benefits Case") that will guide the choice of investment.
Sorry I've been preoccupied for quite a while with other things. Many many thanks to Miskaton for re-starting up the discussion with a map of the concept.
I'd like to make some responses to specific comments and some general remarks. This will be a long post and so I'll leave responses the later specific comments until the next time.
(1) Red Rocket 191 says:
"Good of you for dreaming, but the big question remains:
Why Queen?
Why (Insert whatever station you end up selecting)?"
(2) Second in pie comments:
"I see how it could work. But would it not make more sense to run the YUS as it is currently, but with an express train south of Eglinton? Essentially the same as the current TTC map, but with the blue "express line" from Eglinton to Union. I figure that way, people can get off their train if they want a quick trip downtown, but can stay on if they want a stop between Eglinton and Bloor. I guess it would do a good job of cutting the subway into more manageable slices though... "
(3) Chuck says:
"I'm a huge proponent of express subways, but I just don't think that the time is right today. Express subways are justified when a city is already saturated with subway lines, but still suffers from overcrowding. With everyone already served by a local stop, and no corridors lacking a subway line, that's when enhancements to existing lines make sense.
Having said that, recognize too that the Yonge line already is, by New York standards at least, a true express line north of Eglinton. Express lines in NY generally bypass 2 out of 3 stations, and are about 2 km apart. That is exactly what the Yonge line does north of Eglinton when compared to the section downtown."
(1) Why Queen? The original post said "either under, beside, or near their existing counterparts". The idea is to get support for having the concept tested further by those with the resources to do a formal evaluation. The exact station location is something to discuss as we craft scenarios for analysis. Eglinton, Bloor, and Union are included by definition because of the requirement for transfer to/from other local or express rapid transit services. "Queen" is included because there is probably enough passenger flow in the CBD to need a second distribution point, not just Union. The Y.E.S. tunnel would be somewhere near the existing Yonge Subway tunnel, but probably deeper. A platform located between Queen and King would have escalators angling up and would probably connect to both those stations and add additional capacity to access the PATH system, perhaps in several places. The exact location is trade off between the on civil engineering considerations of underground downtown (the costs) and passenger access (the benefits). Any plan for higher-order service along an east-west alignment (say Queen) would suggest that at least one end of the Y.E.S. second distributor station be connected to that east-west alignment.
(2) "people can get off their train if they want a quick trip downtown" Second in pie is correct that I've assumed the optimum service arrangement is that the northern services becomes the express while the local terminates at Eglinton. But yes, the infrastructure design would allow this to be set up either way. I'm happy to acknowledge that the service pattern over the infrastructure needs to be optimised for passenger convenience in any scenario we investigate.
(3) "With everyone already served by a local stop" This suggests there is little differentiation in the geography of travel demand. I do agree that there is a "floor" of service that applies everywhere in order to provide accessibility in all locations. This is a public policy goal that has nothing to do with location specific demand. However the investigation I am recommending here would consider the actual and estimated future demand for this service in this corridor and we'd have to see if the benefits would outweigh the costs.
I agree with Chuck that the Yonge Subway north of Eglinton is very much like the express subway or regional metro station spacing like New York, Chicago, Washington DC, San Francisco, Line 14 in Paris, etc. It is this concatenation of 1940's design and 1970's design that opens up the opportunity to upgrade the 1940's portion by duplication and have a long length of regional metro.
General remarks
I've proposed this concept to suggest that we test exactly those issues that people keep raising: it would be very expensive, it would be additional investment in an existing corridor, it would be roughly parallel to other options.
As I said in the original post, a Y.E.S. would match regional-scale north-south demand with speedy attractive service along a proven activity corridor. It would be compared against a regional express train in the Don Valley (the parallel option) and against the DRL (the right-angled option).
Finally a historical digression (indulge me) from Toronto for another transportation mode. Highway 401 was originally built as a six lane freeway (three lanes each direction). As more east-west demand developed the province doubled the size of the existing facility. The alternative would have been to build another six lane freeway parallel to the original, say through the hydro corridor north of Finch Ave. As sections were opened up Toronto vied with Chicago to see which city had the longest 12 lane freeway in the world. In Los Angles the philosophy was different; LA has many six lane freeways but no 12 laners. Would highway planners say Toronto and Chicago got better transportation outcomes from concentrating their investments than LA did with spreading its investments? It probably depends on the starting point of their transportation geographies. Yonge Street is the most heavily used transit corridor in Canada. The starting point of our transit geography may be closer to the Toronto and Chicago highway examples than to the LA highway example.
I think the Y.E.S. is worth investigation when we do the north-south analysis (beyond the inadequate Metrolinx "North Yonge Benefits Case") that will guide the choice of investment.
Last edited:
Irishmonk
Senior Member
YES will be seriously considered once the DRL is built and is deemed insufficient at diverting enough users away from the YB interchange.
I predict that someday an entirely new line, roughly paralleling the current L1 Yonge section, but buried much deeper--and boasting double sided platforms to allow detraining on both sides, and 660' long stations for up to 10 car trains.
I see this eventually being built from RHill to The Portlands, with interchanges to line 1 at Finch, Shepherd, Eglinton, Bloor, Queen and Union, then continuing as a solo line through the East Bayside, West DL and terminating at the SE .end of the Portlands. (or in my fantasies, the E end of The Beach.) YES would run deep under Bay street in the CBD with multiple Path connections from the Bloor, Queen and Union interchange stations.
It's a pipedream that would likely cost +20B but, my god, what a difference it would make to the well being and liveability of this city.
It could be marketed as Canada's great urban RT line for the 200th anniversary.
With a surfeit of fast, new convenient high capacity RT spreading through the core it will mean the end of private vehicles as a viable source or appropriate means of transit in a super dense, multi connected rapid transit dominated core. Only buses, taxis, trucks and emergency vehicles would be granted access to the new CBD/DT.
I predict that someday an entirely new line, roughly paralleling the current L1 Yonge section, but buried much deeper--and boasting double sided platforms to allow detraining on both sides, and 660' long stations for up to 10 car trains.
I see this eventually being built from RHill to The Portlands, with interchanges to line 1 at Finch, Shepherd, Eglinton, Bloor, Queen and Union, then continuing as a solo line through the East Bayside, West DL and terminating at the SE .end of the Portlands. (or in my fantasies, the E end of The Beach.) YES would run deep under Bay street in the CBD with multiple Path connections from the Bloor, Queen and Union interchange stations.
It's a pipedream that would likely cost +20B but, my god, what a difference it would make to the well being and liveability of this city.
It could be marketed as Canada's great urban RT line for the 200th anniversary.
With a surfeit of fast, new convenient high capacity RT spreading through the core it will mean the end of private vehicles as a viable source or appropriate means of transit in a super dense, multi connected rapid transit dominated core. Only buses, taxis, trucks and emergency vehicles would be granted access to the new CBD/DT.
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
WOW! Way to find and resurrect a stone dead cold thread......
Ive been on this forum since before 09 and even I havnt seen this thread before
Ive been on this forum since before 09 and even I havnt seen this thread before
steveintoronto
Superstar
I went back to read some of the excellent posts on the first page, including the noted James Bow, to get some background on this.
Thinking on subways has changed radically in even the last eight years since this string was started. For what they cost, and as alluded to by many of the early posters, this is a role best performed by GO RER. Far more cost effective, and as part of a regional system, no change needed to continue into the nether regions, let alone the flexibility of not having to use Union Station as the prime station for GO RER to serve Toronto's core.
This claim is dated, and yet fresh again. Metrolinx *was* claiming recently that they couldn't run such a service down that line. The tune is changing yet again, however, as the DRL and Don Valley lines can be combined. The Province is now taking stewardship of the DRL, even though the TTC and/or City is designing at least the route of the southern portion. The Province has assumed the northern portion completely.
RER will perform the function of "express to downtown" with far faster trains, at a lower cost, and with far less disruption to the existing subway lines. Once relief is had on those subway lines, they can fulfill their present role without overcrowding, and without further need of massive investment.
This topic is as relevant as it ever was, but what's changed is how it's going to be achieved. It's time, well past time, for RER to criss-cross the city and extend out to the regions, like almost every other major advanced major city is now doing, and it's by "through running", much in tunnel, RER.
drum118
Superstar
If you read my posting in other threads related to subways, I have predicate that by 2050, but more sooner than then, a 2nd Yonge line is needed even if the DRL does make its way to Steeles like it should. The longer it takes to get the DRL to Steeles, the shorter the time frame becomes for building a 2nd Yonge Line.
The 2nd line will be the express line that does start at RHC that will have 3 tracks and go under the existing Yonge Line only as far as St Clair. It will swing west to go under Bay St to QQ as none of the existing subway station can handle the 2 lines at the same time. You need crossover to handle 60 seconds headway.
I would even go further than using the current system by going with double deck cars with trains up to 10 cars long. One only has to look at the development on Yonge that is on the books or been looked at or could be look at that the current line is heading for failure even with all the new equipment been bought and install by 2020. The next set of TR has to be at least 500' or more long come early 2020 so the current ones can be move to line 2.
Until there is a way to enlarge all stations from Eglinton south, the stations will never be able to handle the increase ridership, even with screen doors. Then it only good for about 20-25 year and back to where we are today.
As for building subway elsewhere first before Yonge, it better be a line that supports 15,000/hr on day one, as we have too many white elephants that don't get close to 10,000 on the books today. The DRL needs to happen 20+ years go and to stop at Danforth is a joke.
Even the DRL needs to be build to handle double deck cars up to 10 cars long with 3/4 tracks.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Agree with the gist of all of this. I think a 2 min. headway would be more reasonable and attainable though. Agree fully on double decker coaches, as the Sydney, Paris and other RER do.
If this is built "through-running' then the limitations of using a cross-over (trains turned back) are avoided. Here's how the London Crossrail is approaching it:
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2014/purple-reign-crossrail-will-run/
Since the TTC only runs TTC gauge, it complicates matters for Toronto. Fortunately, the Metrolinx LRVs are compatible (if ordered dual voltage option) with the RER standards, and can share track and platforms, so the TTC can do as will be done with the impending Crosstown LRT: Metrolinx owns and TTC operaties. Interline LRVs with RER trains and again, TTC will operate the LRVs, Metrolinx the RER. That's a small point, however, as I see the any Yonge Street (or proximity thereof) Express Line as being Metrolinx owned and operated RER.
Thoroughly agreed with Drum on the massive scale this should be planned on. For four times the load carried, it will cost less than twice as much per distance as the DRL as planned using subway stock, and be vastly more flexible and able to free up existing subway capacity without major alterations.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
yonge-university should have been 4 tracks from the outset. and bloor danforth as well.
junctionist
Senior Member
They didn't build those lines thinking that they'd be the only lines serving a city of 2.7 million people.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
...for the same reason why we aren't constructing a second subway system under our existing subway system, despite Toronto needing such a system once it has a hundred million people within our current city limits.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Somehow I managed to express both of these thoughts in the other conversations...
Jan 3.
[We could start planning the yellow diamond Yonge Express line but since funding relief line is still an issue, perhaps not. Stations under Richmond Hill, Steeles, Finch, York Mills, Lawrence, Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor, Queen (to intersect with the relief line) and Union.]
Feb. 25
[Bring on the Line 1 (yellow diamond) express line dug under line 1 and with stops only at Bloor, Queen, and Union south of Bloor. (Running express north of Bloor to St Clair, Eglinton, York Mills, Sheppard-Yonge, Finch, Steeles and Richmond Hill Centre.)
With growth like this, the 'relief' can't stop with a relief line.]
Jan 3.
[We could start planning the yellow diamond Yonge Express line but since funding relief line is still an issue, perhaps not. Stations under Richmond Hill, Steeles, Finch, York Mills, Lawrence, Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor, Queen (to intersect with the relief line) and Union.]
Feb. 25
[Bring on the Line 1 (yellow diamond) express line dug under line 1 and with stops only at Bloor, Queen, and Union south of Bloor. (Running express north of Bloor to St Clair, Eglinton, York Mills, Sheppard-Yonge, Finch, Steeles and Richmond Hill Centre.)
With growth like this, the 'relief' can't stop with a relief line.]
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Seems like there's no point to running an express line north of Eglinton, it's virtually express already.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Good point. It would be more cost-effective to add the second pair of tracks from Eglinton to downtown only, redirect the northern trains to the new express tracks, and let the all-stop trains terminate at Eglinton.