Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
44 North
Senior Member
Some of this seems a bit fallacious, because your argument can be construed to the point that you're claiming Torontonians who oppose a Line 1 extension to Yonge/Hwy 7 don't support high-density development, transit expansion, improving commuting times, improving access to jobs, improving traffic... I think that couldn't be farther from the truth, and I doubt there's a single member on this site that doesn't support these things or improvements to the Yonge corridor.
The issue many have with sending a subway north of Steeles is mostly cost ($4,600,000,000 last TTC estimate), and whether this is warranted. That's a lot of money, and we have a lot of longstanding priorities that are unmet - many predating the Big Move by decades. Current surface ridership along the Yonge corridor north of Steeles is what, the 30th busiest? Or somewhere in the mid-high twenties? Sure that's a lot, and is definitely worthy of infrastructure to improve the current situation of an armada of buses. But is it really worthy of a $700M/km investment?
Another point is politics. Sorbara's autobiography somewhat admitted an extension to VMC was a porkbarrel of sorts. How do we know this is any different. And why is it that the Richmond Hill GO line got downgraded from an Express Rail promise to seeing next to no improvements. Was it to improve the business case of Yonge North? It had 29min RHC to Union express service, an excellent business case, would've detracted significantly from subway ridership (particularly with Mlinx's proposed fare structure). So was this downgrade a sacrifice worth making?
Another point is development, and whether the claims of highrise office/residential development at RHC/LG - with ultra-high transit mode shares - will pan out. Not to sound like a negative nancy, but we have decades of well-documented evidence that shows how suburban "Centres" never really develop as promised. With numerous factors that can affect this. We even have a current case in point to follow: VMC. It has half the proposed density target of RHC/LG, no NIMBYs for over a mile, and it seems to me they're nowhere near making their 2031 target - all this in a market that's perfectly conducive to urban office and residential development. They'd have to add thousands of residents and office jobs each year for the next fifteen years to meet the promised density goal, and I don't see that happening. And Markham Centre, even with the recent upgrade from AD2W using diesels to electrified RER (and 5min TTC fare SmartTrack) would see inbound 470 and 812peak...so little ridership, for such a massive suburban job hub?
Another point is whether other transit modes were overlooked during the Big Move promise (e.g something between BRT/LRT and subways). I know that Vaughan is currently supporting a 6km subway extension to Wonderland and VMC2 (Vaughan Mills Centre) in place of Viva Silver, and YR's TMP is studying bringing Line all the way up to Major Mack to create a belt line loop. But to me this seems absurd. Not because I don't support transit expansion and subway-like railed RT across the region. But because the mode (heavy rail subway) is too damn costly. Yonge is a massive highway-like arterial, and I think light metro / advanced light rail would be the most optimal mode for YR's future (no, not an in-median BRT/LRT...I mean a true medium capacity subway-like system). The roadway allowance is more than ample to handle a well-landscaped guideway, and in other areas like Thornhill the line can be underground or trenched. Its speed/reliability is on par or above subways, and depending on how it's designed the capacity can be damn near close a 6-car TR. IOW, it's the exact same as a subway, but you get 3-4x the coverage for the same price.
I get that people will be ready to toss out insults, or post disingenuous images of 30s-era Chicago ELs, or defunct monorails, or theme park rides. But if you take a trip to Vancouver or London, you can save yourself the trouble. So rather than wait a century and untold $Billions for a piecemeal subway extensions that may never materialize, or rely TO City Hall to consider it - I think YR would be wise to plan for, design, fund, and operate a light metro themselves. They call the shots. And this one arcing line from Jane / Major Mack / Yonge would be a perfect mirror of Line 1.
kEiThZ
Superstar
44 North
Senior Member
Depending on whether Line 1's terminus was still at Finch or moved up to Steeles, the vast majority of buses/traffic would most definitely be taken off the roads. I'm not arguing for building no subways, I'm arguing for more of them (albeit using a smaller, more affordable, more flexible system). A transfer between these railed modes would naturally present itself, which I guess could make the case for extending Line 1 to Steeles to design a better interchange between Line 1 and this hypothetical YR light metro system. Or YR could bring this system down Yonge to Finch. Either way, I agree with all the points made in yours and Salsa's post, but I'm arguing that all these things can be achieved without having to extend Line 1 north of Steeles.
In the Scarboro RT/SSE study and the Relief Line study, it seems planners are leaving no stone unturned in their quest to find the right system and integration. I don't see why the same couldn't be done here. The Big Move was never written in stone, and the 2nd floor of the Reference Library has entire shelves of canceled EAs. I don't see the problem with YN being one of them.
salsa
Senior Member
Your points are well explained, evidence-based and not unreasonable. But then there are people like Palma whose opposition to the Yonge extension is basically "the subway is for Toronto not Richmond Hill", and "the world ends at Steeles". It's weak arguments like that which prompted my comment that some people are not seeing the benefits that the subway would have for Toronto, even if some of it goes outside our border. What you said is way better than anything Palma has said so far.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I'd like to see the exact numbers. I find it hard to believe there are 29 busier corridors in the GTA, when you combine YRT and TTC ridership. At any given minute I can sit at a red light anywhere between 7 and Finch and literally see 6 or 7 buses in front and behind me. Getting them off the road has innumerable benefits. I guess we could go back to quibbling over your distaste for heavy rail here but I will list one reason it makes sense: it's already there, under Yonge.
You make some fair points about the politics of it all but that's nothing new.
All the stuff about VMC and VMC2 is a series of red herrings, however. As we've previously discussed, them missing their 2031 targets is immaterial; it's 2016 and the subway hasn't even opened yet. Vaughan's lack of ambition and overall sprawl-loving is immaterial to what happens along Yonge Street as a matter of almost natural law.
You're right that many suburban centres haven't developed as promised but the market in 2016 is very different from 1975. There are too many reasons to list why Yonge/7 is a different situation than Scarborough Centre. There's no guarantees but overall TOD is a lot more viable than it was a generation or two ago.
I don't think you're crackers, FWIW. I just think the fact that YONGE is YONGE and the current/future ridership projects would quickly overwhelm an LRT and make people think we should have just built a subway all along. If you looked at Yonge in 1970 and LRT was an option, I doubt you'd have supported heavy rail north of York Mills but what's there now is because of the subway and, again, because it's Yonge Street.
Just look at the Newtonbrook Plaza renders helpfully provided by Marcus above. That's a big site, but it's only one. That's there because of the subway proposal and it's happening already, naturally, because it's Yonge Street. Go down to LRT, you cut the permissible density, there and for 5 km north, significantly. It's not a typical "suburban centre."
Creating a single, seamless system is a goal not just for The Big Move but, I think, for riders. Having multiple switching modes along that corridor seems counterproductive at this point in our history, IMHO.
But clearly, based on the map, there are people in Toronto who share your skepticism, albeit for their own selfish reasons. It's an interesting, quiet little transit drama to watch anyway.
Last edited:
jaycola
Active Member
Demand for development in this area is very high. Potential developers in the Yonge Steeles area are already appealing the prescribed densities and development "Phasing" for pre and post subway development. http://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/...-9e38-6481ae4f364e/jan+14+KLM.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Under the phased development plan only a third of the anticipated development will be permitted prior to Subway expansion. This does not include Markham and Richmond Hill's plans for Langstaff Gateway which is planned to accommodate approximately 48,000 residents and 31,000 jobs, none of which will be built until the planned subway extension is underway.
Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill's official plans are all dependent upon this line extension. Failure to do so will ensure that York Region fails to meet goals set by the province for planning to be dense and transit focused.
Check out York's draft Transportation Master Plan. They clearly state that their development potential can only be realized with the subway extension.
https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect...4-bf0017996ad6/nov+5+yonge+ex.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Under the phased development plan only a third of the anticipated development will be permitted prior to Subway expansion. This does not include Markham and Richmond Hill's plans for Langstaff Gateway which is planned to accommodate approximately 48,000 residents and 31,000 jobs, none of which will be built until the planned subway extension is underway.
Vaughan, Markham and Richmond Hill's official plans are all dependent upon this line extension. Failure to do so will ensure that York Region fails to meet goals set by the province for planning to be dense and transit focused.
Check out York's draft Transportation Master Plan. They clearly state that their development potential can only be realized with the subway extension.
https://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect...4-bf0017996ad6/nov+5+yonge+ex.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Attachments
minilude
Active Member
I drive on Yonge near Thornhill a lot, and often pick up friends at Richmond Hill Center as late as 10pm. The viva blue I saw is always packed, not only in rush hour. I'd expect more ppl to take viva blue once the fare integration is implemented. Not sure where to find the ridership solely for viva blue and pink? There is only the whole ridership for viva/yrt.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I drove on Yonge and Steeles this morning. Stopped at Steeles, I literally had 7 buses in my field of vision.
On the way home, at Cummer, there were 6.
I'm already on record as saying it's silly to advocate LRT on this corridor but 44North, to his credit, almost makes it sound sane. It still isn't.
I think his shortcoming, per Jaycola's post is he fails to understand cause and effect. The reasons VMC is behind have nothing to do with the reasons RHC will succeed.
If anything, the stupidity of a subway to Wonderland PROVES how much sense a subway to Yonge and 7 makes. If anything Vaughan's retrograde dreaming proves how smart Markham is being. Not the opposite as he seems to think.
Development is moving south from Major Mac and North from Finch. To artificially constrain it (or worse, allow it to proceed with inadequate infrastructure) would be shortsighted folly, to save a few imaginary bucks in the short term.
That's my prediction, not an objective fact. But I travel on Yonge every day, and have on this stretch almost my whole life. I know what I see with my own eyes : intensification potential and transit ridership reined in and distorted by inadequate infrastructure. It's almost literally bursting at the seams.
On the way home, at Cummer, there were 6.
I'm already on record as saying it's silly to advocate LRT on this corridor but 44North, to his credit, almost makes it sound sane. It still isn't.
I think his shortcoming, per Jaycola's post is he fails to understand cause and effect. The reasons VMC is behind have nothing to do with the reasons RHC will succeed.
If anything, the stupidity of a subway to Wonderland PROVES how much sense a subway to Yonge and 7 makes. If anything Vaughan's retrograde dreaming proves how smart Markham is being. Not the opposite as he seems to think.
Development is moving south from Major Mac and North from Finch. To artificially constrain it (or worse, allow it to proceed with inadequate infrastructure) would be shortsighted folly, to save a few imaginary bucks in the short term.
That's my prediction, not an objective fact. But I travel on Yonge every day, and have on this stretch almost my whole life. I know what I see with my own eyes : intensification potential and transit ridership reined in and distorted by inadequate infrastructure. It's almost literally bursting at the seams.
44 North
Senior Member
York Region sure does make it hard to find the data, but the most recent I've been able to see for the entire year of 2013 is here: http://www.york.ca/wps/wcm/connect/...-06377528e99d/feb+6+ridership.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Blue: 16,600 avg wkdy
Pink: 2,250 avg wkdy
You can do the math for the other ones, some aren't much. But obviously in the future bus routing would be different with a subway terminus at Steeles and an RT line on Yonge north of Steeles.
The other point about fare integration is important. How many riders at RHC would move toward GO service if its prices were more comparable to subway, and vice versa - as Mlinx wants us to move to. And it's worth noting that in the Yonge North Subway BCA the engineering team tasked to write the report purposefully omitted some important data. That is: Yonge North subway ridership with GO Richmond Hill improvements. They showed the data for just GO and no subway, they showed the data for GO and a subway to Steeles...but what was left out was GO improvements and a subway to RHC. The omission of this potential diversion was obviously deliberate, considering GO RH improvements were on the table.
Never said LRT. Wrote light metro / advanced light rail. There's a difference, which I've written to you about on numerous occasions. Each and every time you ignore this. The capacity is above and beyond what was predicted in any subway modeling (which unsurprisingly was the highest level of development and transit mode shares - a dubious achievement in almost every scenario). And yes yes, it's busy and there's an armada of buses...just like several dozens of other corridors across the GTA.
The point about VMC is not a red herring, it was an example of a Centre. Just as there are other Centres I can point to where transit mode shares and office/residential development didn't pan out as envisioned.
I still maintain that RER on a realigned Richmond Hill corridor and BRT on Yonge is the best option. The RER takes care of the long haul demand, and the BRT makes the trips to NYCC more efficient.
Extending the subway only exacerbates the crowding problem on Yonge. The key is to get people off of Yonge before they ever even get on it. Save the capacity on Yonge for those whose destinations actually lie right on Yonge north of the CBD (i.e. NYCC, Eglinton & Yonge), and get as many other people as possible off of it.
Extending the subway only exacerbates the crowding problem on Yonge. The key is to get people off of Yonge before they ever even get on it. Save the capacity on Yonge for those whose destinations actually lie right on Yonge north of the CBD (i.e. NYCC, Eglinton & Yonge), and get as many other people as possible off of it.
Palma
Senior Member
You know something, I read a lot on this transit stuff on here that its hard sometimes to remember specific details. So I may say things that are not evidences based but to me what is logical. I do not see how always extending a line reliefs anything. You build more highways, eventually they get filled. Its logical. I assume (I know its not the thing to do), that the YR buses go to Finch and not south of there as I would not see the point as their point would be the subway at Finch. So again these buses are not clogging up Toronto streets. Go or RER is what will help the situation. YR people see the TTC as a cheap $3.00 vs taking GO And they see a subway extension as increasing property values because its a flat fare. If TTC fares were high like GO do you still think you would see crowding at Finch? People would take GO. That's the bottom line and the truth.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
GO Richmond Hill improvements are definitely necessary, and with them in place any YN projected ridership would plummet - which is probably why York Region planners don't want us to see this data. And probably why the Prov downgraded the RH line from their original "Express Rail" promise, to next to no improvements to 2031.
But contrary to many people here, I still very much support subway-like infrastructure in York Region, and most definitely want them to build for the future and follow-through with development plans. I just don't think deep bore heavy rail is the way to do it. Nor do I think BRT / BRT-lite feeder routes are enough to entice riders out of their beloved cars.
Although I think you're right that BRT would suffice, my opinion is that YR would be wise to plan for a light metro system instead - similar to Vancouver's Skytrain or London's DLR. The roadways in York Region are massive, highway-like, with ample unused right of way. This would be more than optimal for such a system. It may be considered overkill, and the costs wouldn't justify the ridership. But I think if YR wants to plan for the future - it'd be wise to keep this type of system in mind rather than gamble a generation's worth of our money on a piecemeal subway extension. Or push pie-in-the-sky dreams of Line 1 to Wonderland and across Major Mack.
I think it has more to do with the uncertainty surrounding the southern part of the line and how it relates to other transit improvements. If you can somehow integrate it with the DRL, then upgrading the tracks through the valley becomes a waste of money.
My main issue with using something other than BRT is everything north of RHC. If you go with BRT, RHC becomes a thru-station for Yonge passengers. If you install LRT or ALRT south of RHC, then you force a transfer there. I see that becoming like a Kennedy or Don Mills situation, where it's a linear transfer for a lot of people. RHC is also a gateway, not a destination, so the more people you can get going through that station instead of transferring, the better. VMC is fine for that kind of setup, because the subway takes you downtown. But introducing what would basically be 3 different modes along the same corridor in under 10km would be bad news.
44 North
Senior Member
This is very true. And up until recently, RHC was definitely viewed by YR as the single terminal hub (with BRT northward, and subway southward). But up until very recently, we've learned that YR is now actually looking at potentially expanding the subway north of RHC in the coming decades - with a loop up to Major Mack and across to Vaughan Mills, then south to VMC. If their TMP does in fact include this for 2041, then the point about RHC being a terminal for differing N/S modes is reduced and it will become more of a through station.
Originally BRT north of RHC was seen as more than ample - and any notion of subway or light metro or LRT beyond was easily rejected (see image re: technologies for Yonge corridor north of RHC). But if they're now in fact thinking a subway north of RHC is a possibility (bizarre as it seems), then the idea of one long light metro line from Steeles to Major Mack has more merit. And since YN is somewhat comatose and hasn't started yet, they now plan for a single route between Steeles and Major Mack using light metro (instead of two separate projects using subway).
Attachments
Last edited: