Yonge Subway Extension Plans Get Whittled Away
When I first proposed an LRT option for transit on Yonge Street north of Steeles, I compared it to a subway extension that would only go to Highway 7. I originally made the assumption that there would only be TWO stations north of Steeles: one near Centre or Clark streets, and one at Richmond Hill Centre at Yonge and Highway 7.
When public information sessions for the environmental assessment were held, the plan doubled that by presenting FOUR stations: Clark, Royal Orchard, Langstaff/Longbridge, and Richmond Hill Centre. The plan also called for a 25-bay underground bus terminal at Steeles.
This past week, according to this article, York Region’s rapid transit board received the final conceptual study for the project. Gone is the Royal Orchard station, based on projections that by 2031 it would have only two-thirds the number of users as Bessarion, the TTC’s currently least used subway station. There would also be a 3-bay bus loop (above ground) added at Clark, and the underground bus terminal at Steeles would be reduced to 16 bays from 25.
It is also mentioned that talks are ongoing with the owners of Centrepoint Mall (southwest corner of Steeles and Yonge) about using some of their land for a bus terminal, which would move it to the surface instead of an underground. The original plans would have three levels below ground: a concourse, the bus terminal, then the subway. This would put the buses at ground level and involve a greater vertical travel when transferring.
The report mentions that only half the subway service will initially go north of Steeles, but somewhat erroneously cites the frequency at 3.5 minutes, and more erroneously assumes this will not be forever. This is 210 seconds, and assumes that service south of Steeles would be 105 seconds, which would be pushing it a little. With a new signalling system, service could theoretically be as often as 90 seconds, but that requires that there be absolutely no delays, EVER. 110-120 is more practical to allow for the occasional loading delay. Having half the trains turn back at Steeles will also be mandatory on a permanent basis as it is not physically possible to turn a train around at a current terminal in less than 140 seconds. Perhaps the terminal at Richmond Hill Centre will be built differently, with 2 or 3 tail tracks, but don’t hold your breath.
This story is not over yet.
April 15th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
The one thing that might get the Yonge line extended above Steeles is the need for a car barn to reduce dead head times and to free up the line for maintenance. I am not sure how far north you would need to go to find land for a car barn but I am sure York would think that Keswick or Sutton would suffice. We could borrow 416 back from Rockwood to take part in opening ceremonies.
I have suggested tongue in cheek before that Sheppard Stubway could be converted into a linear car barn, 5.4 or whatever km long. It could probably hold 30 to 40 6 car train sets while a surface LRT is extended from Don Mills to Yonge but I doubt that the political types would see the benefits of my plan but it would save a lot in operating costs.
I have watched the traffic of buses travelling on Yonge north of Finch and I think it was around 4 to 9 buses for each light cycle at Yonge and Steeles. There is definitely a need to extend the line to Steeles. I think the TTC should end it there and provide an underground pedestrian connection to what ever York region wishes to build. In order to get a shorter headway every second train would have to turn back at Finch. This would ensure that patrons from Toronto would have the same chance of getting a seat as those from York.
I don’t know why the residents of York think that they should get preferential treatment for subways over those who actually live in Toronto or over people from Peel or Durham. The York Spadina extension should not be built as there is no demand for it. Spadina should not have been built north of Eglinton but that is another political disaster. LRT would have been a lot cheaper and provided the capacity needed.
Cal’s comment: I am open to functional reasons for extending the existing subway system, as I generally believe that radial expansion is a waste of resources. As such, I am willing to accept an extension from Finch to Steeles as this will provide a means for having two turn back points in order to increase train frequency south of Finch, plus the bus load on Yonge from Finch to Steeles should be replaced with a higher order of transit. I will admin that a storage facility that would reduce deadhead costs is one practical reason for extending the line, and the conceptual study calls for a 14 train underground storage facility that would be located north of High Tech Road.
That said, I believe that a more practical expenditure that would result in reducing deadhead costs would be to build the so-called “North York Relief Line” - the extension of the Sheppard line west to Downsview. At a cost of $1 billion (compared to the $1.4 billion for the Steeles to Highway 7 extension), this would not only provide the practical advantage of reduced deadhead costs, but would also provide a Network Enhancement (as opposed to tacking on an extension to the end of a line, adds no enhancment to the network). I’m not saying use the $1.4 billion south of Steeles (i.e.: extension to 7 versus NYRL), but work towards funding the NYRL as a new project. The $1.4 billion should still be spent on 16 km of LRT (north to Elgin Mills, and east on 7 to Woodbine) instead of 4 km of subway.
One other thing: for full disclosure (which I have made before): I live in Richmond Hll and would prefer LRT north from Steeles. I am about a 1 km walk from what would be the Crosby stop on the line (unless I take a bus, which runs on a 60 minute headway Mondays to Fridays, or 85 minutes on Saturdays; forget Sundays). That would still make for a shorter door-to-door trip than other options available.
April 15th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
I wonder about the ability for Wilson to hold all the trains for the Yonge extension plus the added trains for Sheppard (all 8 cars worth). There would also need to have an additional connection track built from Sheppard W to Yonge N. The existing connections would make for extremely convoluted switching. I just can’t see that a a workable option.
Cal’s comment: I believe that there is sufficient storage between Wilson and Davisville, but there is no servicing at Davisville. Needing to perform switch-back operations due to connecting tracks only in the SW and SE quadrants, while not ideal, is not such a hardship for start of service and end of service operations. Besides, placing a train in service southbound at York Mills is possible, as will be taking it out of service there once the new signaling system is in place (to allow left-hand running to the SW connecting track).
Finch with 94,400 ppd in 2010 is the heaviest station in usage after Bloor-Yonge and St. George. A lot of those come from the buses so extending to Steeles would get a lot of buses off Yonge St. in Toronto while providing the double turn back, half at Finch and Half at Steeles. The Passengers from the Finch LRT would actually get a seat.
How far north is High Tech Rd? IS it just North of #7? I was being a little bit facetious about my comment to go to Keswick but I thought that there was talk about a facility farther North.
It is the first actual road north of Highway 7. On Yonge Street, that makes it the third set of traffic lights after passing the Highway 7 overpass. The first lights are for the 407, the second is for the connector to Highway 7 and Garden Avenue and the third is High Tech. There was earlier talk about an underground facility that would have been on the south side of the 407 near the Langstaff/Longbridge station. This is where there is a hydro corridor that would have a 1900 space parking lot, so it was thought an underground storage facility might be possible. I suspect Hydro One had other thoughts on the matter.
April 17th, 2012 at 10:27 am
I live in the 905 as well, Newmarket to be exact. I always felt that Yonge needed an extension past Finch. It is interesting to note, as i read the entire article in the Era Banner, that york region did not like the idea of at least getting the subway to Steeles as a starter. I guess they are looking at all or nothing. With the subway pushing out beyond the 416 I think there should be more discussion of a more intergreated region transit approach beyond just what we have with Metrolinx. The argument has been made that why should the 905 be getting more say regarding subways, but we have to remember that most of thesee trips will be terminating in Toronto. If we start getting overly sensative to the regionality issue we are going to be in for some serious problems. Without a stronger link to the 905 and the 905 keeps on growing as it does you might start seeing a senario where more business start relocate to the 905 due to the fact the tranist to toronto is becoming unbearable.
Cal’s comment: Personally, I have felt that Metrolinx should be a co-ordinator of GTHA transit, particularly when it comes to fare integration. I’m not in favour of them taking over all transit, because they have shown little interest, let alone knowledge, about local transit needs. Local agencies know that better.
Extending the subway to Steeles has functional benefits that make sense, but going beyond Steeles is not so beneficial. If the money were spent on an LRT system north of Steeles instead, there are numerous benefits besides initially being able to reach 16 km from Yonge and Steeles instead of 4 km. These benefits fall under the category of leaving YRT and the Region more in control of it’s rapid transit needs.
Like any subway extension, building the subway to Highway 7 means that it is extremely difficult to get it extended further. In the case of a TTC asset that lies outside of Toronto’s city limits, that difficulty is made worse. Even if York Region could come up with the money to extend it further, there is the little issue of the operating costs. TTC bus routes that operate north of Steeles do so under contract of YRT. That means that they “become” YRT buses and YRT pays for their operation and a separate fare is collected to help with that cost. A few years ago when there was a strike at the TTC, when service was resuming, the YRT contracted routes were among the first to be back up in FULL operation because it meant cash for the TTC.
This will not be the case for subway extensions. When the extension to Vaughan opens in 2015, the subway will be part of the “TTC fare zone”. This means that one will have to pay TTC fare when boarding it, without the need to pay an extra fare at Steeles. This also means that YRT will not be subsidizing it’s operation. If cuts in service are needed, YRT has no say. Initially, the plan is to only turn back half the morning rush hour trains at Steeles, but run all service to Vaughan in the afternoon rush hours. Let’s see how long that remains in effect.
With an LRT system north of Steeles on Yonge, YRT and the Region will have full control on it’s operating frequency and when and how it will be extended.
April 17th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
I do agree better fare intergration is the key. Subway to vaghan is a done deal so no real reason to go over it. However, I could just imagine how empty to will run on Sundays and holidays. I mean who in a corportate centre would work those days? A big question I have always had is what impact will the Vaughan subway have on yonge street travel? How far or close would you have to be to yonge before you decide you would drive over to Vaughan station as oppsed to drive down to Finch station? After all Vaughan station would be about 10 minutes away from Yonge by 407 or if you decided to take the VIVA hwy 7 route accross to Vaughan station as opposed to busing down yonge to finch. If York region can do a good job in re-directing travel to the Vaughan station or the 407 station this could really put a dent in the travel down yonge. An integrated LRT line from Steeles to Major Mackenzie or beyond would be ideal for the north end of yonge.
Cal’s comment: The decision to go over to Yonge or not is only partly dependant on where you start your trip, but also on where your destination is. If heading downtown, south of Bloor, either way is relatively the same. You would consider not just how far you are from either choice, but how long it will take you to get there. A choice between 5 km that takes 20 minutes and 8 km that takes 10 minutes would be a big factor. There is also the crowd concerns, which would make Vaughan a preferred choice. If you need to get to something north of Bloor, your decision will likely be tied to which line is closer to your destination.
If one is driving to the subway, don’t forget (or for those who perhaps didn’t realize…) there will NOT be any parking at the VCC subway station - at least none that is part of the transit infrastructure. There will be a 600 space lot at the 407 station.
I brought up the issue of the subway being part of the TTC fare zone to emphasize how York Region will have little to no say in how the service will operate. For someone who now drives to park at Finch or Wilson, they will be happy to be able to park at Jane/407 and not have to pay two fares to get into the city. The trouble is, very few realize the impact this will have on York University “commuter” students who live in York Region. My son is one of those and he has the benefit of only needing a YRT fare to get from home to campus. When the subway opens, York will ban all buses from the campus and the subway will be the only public transit way in without a walk. The closest YRT will get to campus will be the Steeles West station on the north side of Steeles west of Keele, which means either walking from there, or paying the TTC fare to travel one station south. Not only that, but I believe the VIVA routes will be re-aligned to feed the VCC subway station, so there will be no branches running south from Highway 7. The choice will be to just take the subway (for a full extra fare) for the three stops south, or transfer to a YRT route to get down to Steeles and walk the rest of the way.
Of course, my proposed fare integration scheme would prevent that because of overlapping boundaries.
April 20th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
If the subway ended in at Steeles in the Toronto boundry, York region student commuters will have the same issue as they have if it went to Vaughan that being that buses would still be banned from york university and they would have to get off at Steeles station and subway it one stop. Vaughan would then have absolutely no say in the line as it does not reach york region even though more people from Vaghan would now rely on the subway due to proximity. So I am thinking that it ending in Vaughan is better than it not going their. This would have been the same issue if they decided to LRT it all the way to Vaughan or LRT to Steeles. My point is that their has to be a greater involment with intergreation when the subway crosses steeles vs when we are talking bus routes.
Cal’s comment: That is true. However, there has been, to a small extent, and will be a big to-do about how ‘integrated’ the fare will be with how people boarding the subway will not have to pay two fares from the entrance of the subway. This is all well and good, and a nice plus, for anyone within walking distance of a station (not very likely at VCC or 407), for someone being dropped off, or for someone planning on driving to the subway. For anyone taking a bus, there is no change except for where they have to pay the second fare. What I was pointing out was that York students will get dinged, and they are perhaps the least able to afford it of all those who will use the line. True, it would be the same if the line only went to Steeles, but I suspect that would be more obvious to most, given that so many are used to this as a fare border already.
Bus routes are not permanet fixtures as they can be changed quickly nor do planning and the cost of implementing a bus route come anywhere near where what it costs to put in a subway, Subway routes for the most part are permanent fixtures and do not change and represent except for the changes to the bloor/yonge interlining routes of the 60’s and that was over 40 years ago. Subways are infustructure investment bus routes you only have the cost of the shelter, stops, the vehicles and driver. The schedule of the subway can not be fully at the discretion of the TTC. Especially when York region is contributing funds as is province.
For the construction, yes. For the operation, no. The TTC will be funding the operation totally, unless there are changes to the provincial government’s way of thinking on the matter.
Also, Vaghan station is an on road station pass thru for buses so I think it will primarily serve East and West bound HWY 7 buses. There seems to be no provisions for looping of buses comming from other routes unless you have them looping around side steets. (I work a few blocks from Jane and hwy 7) and the layout is not great for street looping or use of side streets. If it is going to be a terminal for buses you need a proper bus station. More likely that the buses might terminate at Steeles or the 407 interchange if their is room.
I believe you are correct that VCC will be a connection point for the VIVA routes (in terms of bus bays and infrastructure - anyone can of course walk in from another route’s stop), and perhaps only them. Other routes will use facilities at either the 407 station or the Steeles West station.
April 20th, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I know that operations will be handled by the TTC, the point I am making is that it should not be handled by them 100% when it crosses in Vaughan so I guess we are on the same page with most of our points.
Cal’s comment: As long as York Region pays part of the operating cost, then York Region can have a similar proportion percentage of the say. I say that as a property tax payer in York Region. That said, if York Region were to pay 100% of the operating costs north of Steeles, I wonder just what level of service they would find they could keep up.
April 28th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
Dwight Says:
April 20th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
“If the subway ended in at Steeles in the Toronto boundry, York region student commuters will have the same issue as they have if it went to Vaughan that being that buses would still be banned from york university and they would have to get off at Steeles station and subway it one stop. Vaughan would then have absolutely no say in the line as it does not reach york region even though more people from Vaghan would now rely on the subway due to proximity. So I am thinking that it ending in Vaughan is better than it not going their. This would have been the same issue if they decided to LRT it all the way to Vaughan or LRT to Steeles. My point is that their has to be a greater involment with intergreation when the subway crosses steeles vs when we are talking bus routes.”
I asked the Brampton Transit people what would happen to the ZUM 501 riders who now went to York U on 1 fare after the subway opened. They replied that most are not university students, to their amazement, and they hoped that with Presto people would be allowed to ride from Steeles to York for a minimal or no extra fare providing they tapped off at York.
My main problem is that a full subway should not be crossing into Vaughan as the demand does not warrant the expenditure. The TYSE extension was built to keep an MP and an MPP in their seats. Both the Spadina and possible Yonge extensions should be LRT as that is all the demand needs for now or the foreseeable future.
Why should someone who lives in York and doesn’t pay taxes to Toronto get a one seat ride down Spadina or Yonge when the poor slobs who live in Toronto and pay taxes to Toronto that help to subsidize the fare have to stand. If you want to live in the 905 then be prepared to either pay another fare when you enter Toronto or have your property taxes go to paying the operating subsidy for the TTC. By the way I live in Brampton and fully expect to pay another fare when I cross into Toronto.
Cal’s comment: I question the entire extension, not just the portion north of Steeles. Thanks to York University’s lobbying efforts, they are getting a subway, just like U of T and Ryerson have. My original York Region Options page was written back when something else could have been done, and an LRT proposal from Downsview would have been underground on York’s campus, but would be able to head west on Highway 7 to Pine Grove and east to Yonge.
Even the discussion on how the fare will be charged is moot, as the MOU between Toronto and York Region has been around since June 2008. The subway will be completely in the “TTC fare zone”. Also, the TTC will maintain and receive all commuter parking lot revenues and be able to set the price for parking, except for the 407 lot where the price will be double the average TTC or YRT fare (whichever is lower). Aside from the 407 station, the only other possible commuter parking lot will be at Steeles West station, as there will be no commuter parking at VCC.
I should also note that in re-reading the MOU, there is a provision to work with Metrolinx/Government of Ontario to allow York bus passengers connecting to the subway within York Region to access York University without paying a double fare. I suspect this means that it will require the use of Presto along with the need to tap out at the campus station. That way, the TTC fare is charged when boarding the subway, but performing a tap out at York University (probably within a time limit) will credit the fare back.p>
April 29th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
I believe that the Yonge subway used to have a headway just above 2 minutes nut to do this the trains were allowed to key buy a red signal to get closer to the next signal so they could enter as soon as the train in front left. This was stopped with the collision north of St. Clair West Station. The terminals in use had shorter cross-overs that took less time to clear. The new cross-overs at the terminal stations have much longer sections of track for the trains to clear. I also believe that they had drop crewing so there would be crew ready to jump into the train as soon as its doors opened ready to take it back. The crew from the train would take the train behind.
Cal’s comment: Back when I was attending Ryerson and commuting from Scarborough, I believe the headway was somewhere around 2:15 to 2:20 when running properly (135-140 seconds), at least for southbound morning trains at Bloor. It was likely similar in the afternoons, as I can recall many times when the train I was on would key-by the block signals south of Bloor.
Why this practice was banned is beyond me. The accident (which was south of St. Clair West) had nothing to do with key-by operations which must be done at a very low speed to allow the trip arm to drop after the train enters the block circuit but before it gets to the trip arm while it is high enough for it to trip the train. The accident occurred at line speed when the train passed a signal at red either because the operator mis-read the signal when leaving St. Clair West or mis-remembered it when he got to the next signal, and then had his incorrect situational awareness confirmed when an out-of-tolerance trip arm on the Spadina line did not trip his train. Nothing to do with key-by.
I read a report from the US Nation Transportation Research Board that said ATO will only result in a 4% improvement on minimum headway. This is almost NOT worth the cost of the up grade.
April 30th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Cal said:
“Why this practice was banned is beyond me. The accident (which was south of St. Clair West) had nothing to do with key-by operations which must be done at a very low speed to allow the trip arm to drop after the train enters the block circuit but before it gets to the trip arm while it is high enough for it to trip the train. The accident occurred at line speed when the train passed a signal at red either because the operator mis-read the signal when leaving St. Clair West or mis-remembered it when he got to the next signal, and then had his incorrect situational awareness confirmed when an out-of-tolerance trip arm on the Spadina line did not trip his train. Nothing to do with key-by.”
I know but it had to do with going by red signals so they changed the mechanisms so that you could not key by.
Cal’s comment: I beg to differ, as I am not aware of any physical change that prevents a key-by at a block signal. For those not aware, here is how it works: When both blocks before and after a signal are occupied, the trip arm remains down despite the red indication on the signal. This is necessary in order to prevent a train from tripping itself as the trip arm works by hitting a lever on the brake line below the driver’s cab. I am not aware of the lever locations on the TR cars, but all others can be tripped by a lever under the driver’s cab on the right side of the train at the front of the first, third, and fifth car. So, if the trip arm raised as soon as the train entered the next block when the signal turned red, it would be fully in the raised position before the third car reaches it and it would get tripped.
Block signals and their trip arm are located a few metres past the insulated gap in the rails. If the train is moving slow enough, the first axle (which is immediately behind the driver’s cab) passes the insulated joint and enters the circuit for the next block with a couple of metres before reaching the trip arm. The driver may have to stand and lean to see trip arm through the front window to ensure it drops before being able to continue without being tripped. In order to make this physically impossible, the trip arms would have to be moved a couple of metres at every signal in the system, and from what I have observed this has not been done.
The signaling change that was made was to have a red signal that was on grade timing flash, in order to distinguish it from a regular (stop and stay) red signal.
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
I said:
“I know but it had to do with going by red signals so they changed the mechanisms so that you could not key by.”
Cal said:
“I beg to differ, as I am not aware of any physical change that prevents a key-by at a block signal. For those not aware, here is how it works: When both blocks before and after a signal are occupied, the trip arm remains down despite the red indication on the signal. This is necessary in order to prevent a train from tripping itself as the trip arm works by hitting a lever on the brake line below the driver’s cab. I am not aware of the lever locations on the TR cars, but all others can be tripped by a lever under the driver’s cab on the right side of the train at the front of the first, third, and fifth car. So, if the trip arm raised as soon as the train entered the next block when the signal turned red, it would be fully in the raised position before the third car reaches it and it would get tripped.”
I may be wrong but I thought they used the term “KEY BY” to also refer to the practice where you could pull up to a non interlocking red slowly and the trip arm would then drop so you could proceed slowly to the next signal. I can remember Yonge trains entering at one end while the preceding train was still in the station. They still have manual key by at interlocking signal but you have to have the bottom yellow under both reds flashing. The interlocking to Wilson Yard was acting up the other day and we had yo key by every interlocking signal from Yorkdale to just south of Downsview. I never meant to imply that the manual key by had been changed. I am not sure if they just forbade the practice and non interlockings or fixed the trip arm so they would not drop.
Cal’s comment: You are basically correct about “KEY BY” for non-interlocking signals. I described the mechanism that physically permits it to be done and this has not been changed because it is needed to prevent a train from being tripped when its third or fifth car passes over the trip arm. Only the rules have been changed about it’s use.
At an interlocking signal, things are a bit different because the trip arm is positioned closer to the block boundary. So close that the trip arm would do it’s job before the front wheels of the train entered the circuit of the next block to cause the trip arm to drop. The trip arm must be manually lowered from by the dispatcher, and I believe that it may be done either manually with the dispatcher actually performing an action to make it happen, or by setting it up to automatically occur when a train approaches (sounds a little like a grade timing type of operation). If a train gets to a red interlocking signal and needs to actually request the operation, they must perform a “call on” which involves the operator opening the window and reaching out to press a button either on the wall of the tunnel or mounted on the signal if there is no wall.
I don’t know about other terminal stations, but every time I can recall that I have arrived at Finch on a train, the second interlocking signal before the interlocking signal at the crossover displays a red-over-red until just as we reach it and the flashing yellow at the bottom comes on. Why this occurs instead of the logic allowing this signal to just clear from a red display is a bit of a mystery to me. I suspect that the control length of that signal may include the crossover and if it is still not ready for the train, the key by is used to allow the train to come closer as there are still two signals before reaching the crossover.
If anyone can fill in any gaps in this description, I would appreciate it.