Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Munro has problems with everything! But I agree with some of his points. "Cost-effectiveness," is a big thing in the report but there are different ways to assess "bang for the buck."

The DRL stuff is curtailed by the fact, as the author says, that it doesn't have the same data the other projects do. Metrolinx has already done a lot of analysis of the Yonge extension but the DRL process is just starting....which is Toronto's fault, but that's neither here nor there.

Like him, I need to give it a proper reading to really comment. Like he says they envision the UP express as the only major connection to the airport but I thought the 407 Transitway is supposed to go our there too; it looks it's nowhere in the report. I don't doubt there are shortfalls but it still seems like a good place to start. It's at least nice to see someone else talking about the extension as a virtual no-brainer, even if it means bringing some of the stations on later
Click to expand...

IMO, he's critical because Toronto transit has been such a mess for 30 years. But I think just two stations, RHC and steeles being built is not a bad idea.
 
smallspy said:
He's not the only one. There are enough big holes in that report to drive a highways' worth of 18-wheelers through it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...

Solid Snake said:
I disagree with their conclusions on the DRL but I have to agree with how they debunked Transit City and the Crosstown. Any Transit City champions will hate that report.
Click to expand...

Well name some problems with the report smallspy.
 
smallspy said:
He's not the only one. There are enough big holes in that report to drive a highways' worth of 18-wheelers through it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The report might make for a good BA fourth-year paper, but not a serious planning document.

Here's an easy picking: The author couldn't get the facts right about Main Street Station's mezzanine level. He assumes its large size was a provision for a connection to Danforth GO Station when even Wikipedia correctly says it was where the fare collection orginally took place.
 
lots of mistakes in other things as well, mentioning that the Eglinton LRT will end at jane a couple of times, and saying tunnelling will go to Weston, despite 2 sentences earlier mentioning that east of keele it will be elevated.
 
innsertnamehere said:
lots of mistakes in other things as well, mentioning that the Eglinton LRT will end at jane a couple of times, and saying tunnelling will go to Weston, despite 2 sentences earlier mentioning that east of keele it will be elevated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think probably every project has some sort of factual error to find if you know enough about it. I mentioned above (I think?) he didn't seem to know the area around the RHC station at all, and suggested weird locations for the parking and rail yard, both of which have already been decided in different (and better) locations. It's also fine to argue they can build the extension faster by ditching some of the stations but you can't ditch Langstaff, which is where people will park.

It's almost like he looked at all the numbers and ideas while missing some of the basic facts and geographical context.

There's interesting stuff in there to think about but I agree with the idea it's more of a really good university paper than a study with the weight of most of Neptis's stuff.
 
I totally agree with phasing the stations for the extension with growth and passing costs on to developers, which in turn pass on to the condo purchasers.
Cummer may be the exception where I believe, along with Steeles, there is enough demand pressure for development to justify the additional investment.
Yonge between Steeles and Hwy 7 can adequately be served with existing surface routes and priority transit transit lanes where demand exists. It's a 3 minute bus ride or 10 minute walk from Clark to Steeles.
Longbridge could be the other exception if accommodating the required parking at RH centre proves to be impossible for the short term. With the huge development planned for Longbridge between Bayview and Yonge, putting the developers on the hook for building this station works for me.

The plan for charging a premium for rides to Union works for me too. I'd like to see them charge $5 for TTC to Unon and $4 for the GO train. Hopefully that would divert more people off the Yonge Subway.
 
I can't imagine any developer would be willing to pay a substantial amount thats needed to build a subway station. They can build their condos anywhere else and still make a good profit. Look how this cheap ass developer didn't even purchase air rights for this massive development at Don Mills station.

11328748985_f145766de2_b.jpg

Image by MafaldaBoy
 
salsa said:
I can't imagine any developer would be willing to pay a substantial amount thats needed to build a subway station. They can build their condos anywhere else and still make a good profit. Look how this cheap ass developer didn't even purchase air rights for this massive development at Don Mills station.
Click to expand...

If the air rights were imposed by the city, they would still build on top of stations. They would just overcharge whoever buys or rent in their buildings...for a profit of course and there will always be people willing to pay extra to have a station right at their doorsteps
 
jaycola said:
I totally agree with phasing the stations for the extension with growth and passing costs on to developers, which in turn pass on to the condo purchasers.
Cummer may be the exception where I believe, along with Steeles, there is enough demand pressure for development to justify the additional investment.
Yonge between Steeles and Hwy 7 can adequately be served with existing surface routes and priority transit transit lanes where demand exists. It's a 3 minute bus ride or 10 minute walk from Clark to Steeles.
Longbridge could be the other exception if accommodating the required parking at RH centre proves to be impossible for the short term. With the huge development planned for Longbridge between Bayview and Yonge, putting the developers on the hook for building this station works for me.

The plan for charging a premium for rides to Union works for me too. I'd like to see them charge $5 for TTC to Unon and $4 for the GO train. Hopefully that would divert more people off the Yonge Subway.
Click to expand...

The Richmond Hill subway extension does not need a park and ride. A few thousand park and ride spaces is enough to fill at most a couple of trains in the morning rush hour. Adding a subway station for hundreds of million dollars to serve a few parking spaces is a waste of money.
 
andrewpmk said:
The Richmond Hill subway extension does not need a park and ride. A few thousand park and ride spaces is enough to fill at most a couple of trains in the morning rush hour. Adding a subway station for hundreds of million dollars to serve a few parking spaces is a waste of money.
Click to expand...

As usual you are clueless about transit. Those stations are not there to serve drivers. They will also be used by GO, Viva and YRT which already have high ridership. It will also allow major development in Richmond Hill centre and Langstaff, which by now have been fully planned. If you would bother to read the reports, you will see that the ridership exists and that the subway will significantly improve travel times north of Finch. But no, lets build the Shepard subway instead (because Yonge & Bloor is not building new offices).

11330620483_127b66cb22_b.jpg


11330514685_7011d50c2b_b.jpg


11330569704_33a0927139_b.jpg
 
Who thinks these cheap ass developers in Toronto building all these cheap looking condos are going to give millions to build subway stations?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top