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

[Johnny Au]

Since Target is closing up for good, this would leave Centerpoint without a major tenant, which would make it easier to intensify the area where the mall is and create a transit-oriented hub at Yonge and Steeles called "Centerpoint."

 

[nfitz]

You can't expropriate land for resale afaik

I'd assumed you could if it was just a single lot, and you needed part of it.

Okay then, expropriate 4 holes of the 18-hole golf course then. The prime issue is that there's quite clearly land available. I doubt with densification if that land would still be a golf course in 50 years. 120 years ago where my house is used to be The Toronto Golf Club - or at least close to it. Sometime just before World War I it moved to Mississauga, and streetcar tracks were constructed through the old course. There's nothing new here ...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Since Target is closing up for good, this would leave Centerpoint without a major tenant, which would make it easier to intensify the area where the mall is and create a transit-oriented hub at Yonge and Steeles called "Centerpoint."

Too bad Cayne's Housewares and the other stores on Doncaster Avenue couldn't move into Centerpoint.

 

[44 North]

Some of the comments over the last few days seem to write-off the Richmond Hill line altogether – as well as its potential connection to the abandoned and Metrolinx-owned Don Sub from Eglinton/Leslie to Union. I wouldn’t be so quick to do that. Yes, there are flooding issues south of Gerrard. But I think it’s highly likely that this will be our DRL, at least for the 21st century: Richmond Hill Line, with express service from Bloor/Danforth to Union. The costliest piece will naturally be connecting RH from Lawrence to this Don Branch just north of Eglinton. But the bit of infrastructure required to connect the Don Branch with the B/D line at Broadview is actually quite simple:

Basically it would be 250m pedestrian passage that has to rise 20m. The first 75m from this rerouted RH line would be a bridged section of escalator/elevator/stairs bringing it safely above the DVP, followed by a 175m passage + short escalator/elevator to link up with Broadview’s platform. This isn’t anything as complicated (rather, unrealistic) as the idea of trying to create a transfer between the current RH line to Castle Frank – i.e a 400m long + 35m elev from a floodplain. This would actually be realistic and within line of a commuter rail-rapid transit subway connection. I’ll make a cross-section doodle later on to show what would be required.

As for the gung ho attitude about extending the Yonge line to Richmond Hill Centre...that seems ridiculous. So RHC and the Yonge strip has been identified as an arbitrarily-named ‘growth centre’? Simply put: the land is mostly vacant and devalued, and needs transit to improve property values. I don’t think that’s reason to build the most ridiculously expensive form of transit (underground heavy rail), not to mention further put a strain on a line that already has capacity issues.

If York Region wants rapid transit to connect Richmond Hill to Finch, then York Region should build a York Region solution. Which IMO would be some kind of light rail or intermediate skytrain-type system. Elevated, trenched, whatever... But relying on an expensive and astronomically-priced form of transit (rather, THE most expensive form of transit) just seems silly. Most cities it seems would go with a light system in this situation (i.e – they’d still build a true rapid transit line...but as an affordable, flexible, and light system). So what if this new system creates a “forced transfer†at Finch? There’s going to be a transfer somewhere along the line. And York Region is eventually going to have to come up with an RT system at some point in the future that fits with their suburban realm. May as well do it sooner rather than later. And where better than on Yonge? And another bonus is that this transfer at Finch may allow people to think twice about using Yonge and instead use the Richmond Hill line.

For the same price as this ridiculously-expensive Yonge extension, York Region could build a thorough light RT that would put most regions of similar size to shame.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Since Target is closing up for good, this would leave Centerpoint without a major tenant, which would make it easier to intensify the area where the mall is and create a transit-oriented hub at Yonge and Steeles called "Centerpoint."

Better yet, they could call it "Centrepoint"!!

Too bad Cayne's Housewares and the other stores on Doncaster Avenue couldn't move into Centerpoint.

We're getting off-topic but why couldn't they, in theory?
Anyway, Centerpoint will definitely see redvelopment once the subway is coming. The question is one of scale but I think it's fair to say that Yonge/Steeles will end up looking more or less like Yonge/Sheppard.

Some of the comments over the last few days seem to write-off the Richmond Hill line altogether – as well as its potential connection to the abandoned and Metrolinx-owned Don Sub from Eglinton/Leslie to Union. I wouldn’t be so quick to do that. Yes, there are flooding issues south of Gerrard. But I think it’s highly likely that this will be our DRL, at least for the 21st century: Richmond Hill Line, with express service from Bloor/Danforth to Union. The costliest piece will naturally be connecting RH from Lawrence to this Don Branch just north of Eglinton. But the bit of infrastructure required to connect the Don Branch with the B/D line at Broadview is actually quite simple:

The issue is not whether it should be written off altogether. I dunno how many times I can say this without my head exploding:
-There is a provincial growth plan. It is the law of the land.
-There is a regional transit plan. It is more malleable but still prioritizes the Yonge subway extension.
-They both earmark Yonge/7 as a major node, ergo it is stupid to opt for extending the subway but only to Steeles (as some have suggested)
-The intensification planned for Yonge/7 is NOT, as with most developments, based around road capacity but rather transit capacity. To achieve it's aims it will require BOTH RER and the subway (and, to a lesser extent, the transitway). So, the discussion here has focused on the notion some have posed that an RER could replace the subway. It cannot.

As for the gung ho attitude about extending the Yonge line to Richmond Hill Centre...that seems ridiculous. So RHC and the Yonge strip has been identified as an arbitrarily-named ‘growth centre’? Simply put: the land is mostly vacant and devalued, and needs transit to improve property values. I don’t think that’s reason to build the most ridiculously expensive form of transit (underground heavy rail), not to mention further put a strain on a line that already has capacity issues.

This paragraph is absurdity from start to finish. If you think Yonge/7 is an "arbitrary" growth centre you understand very little of the local or regional context, or the principles underlying Places to Grow - which municipalities are obligated to follow because it is a LAW. If you think the land is "mostly vacant and devalued" I have a Walmart and a Silver City and a massive stone storage facility and another few things that are actually not owned by me but actually Metrus which is owned by ConDrain which is, in case you don't know, one of the biggest developers in the country. So, this is just utter misinformation.

If York Region wants rapid transit to connect Richmond Hill to Finch, then York Region should build a York Region solution. Which IMO would be some kind of light rail or intermediate skytrain-type system.

I'll tell you why this is stupid very quickly: because one muncipality building an "our municipality only" solution does NOTHING to help the actual people who live in it who actually travel, many of them every day, in and out and across the border which is, in reality, just some street. By your logic we might as well bar 905 riders from even stepping onto the TTC. The entire point (again, since you have demonstrated no knowledge of either) of Places to Grow and The Big Move is to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said above. The same goes for your totally off-base comments about York Region needing to come up with "an RT system at some point in the the future that fits with their suburban realm." Are you aware of the existence of Viva, a BRT system that PRECISELY fits that definition? Do you understand it eventually has to interface with other transit systems, not all of which will be run by York Region, by definition? Finally, on this point, are you aware that Viva and the local YRT system already have an existing hub amidst this "devalued" wasteland you describe, which also happens to be where the local GO station is?

(This is from the Metrolinx website. See if it sounds remotely like what you've just described:
[Metrolinx] was created to play a critical role in planning and delivering a seamless, integrated transit network allowing people to use public transit to travel easily from Hamilton to Newmarket to Oshawa. It’s the final piece in a three-part approach by the Province to prepare the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for growth and sustained prosperity.)

A York Region skytrain? That's your contribution to the thread?
Your fascination with the alleged MASSIVE cost of subway is also absurd. Are you aware there are already subways in Toronto? Are you further aware that one of them is only 6 km away from this growth centre, the location of which, contrary to your balderdash, is the exact opposite of arbitrary? Did you even see the map I posted above where something like 6 different transit systems converge at a single point? Do you understand that the current terminus of the line was built in 1974?

I hope you didn't spend too much time on that map because it has no more to do with reality than if you drew a unicorn cavorting in a field. (But only if the unicorn was called "Clarke," which is spelled differently than Thornhill's "Clark Avenue.") Why can't people understand - this ship has sailed. Disagree if you like but everyone with an actual say in the matter has already agreed the line is viable. The decisions are on record, the data is there, it's done but for the money and the TTC's capacity issues. This is the only map that matters and it shows an anchor mobility hub and a subway, no matter how ridiculous you think either are:

I don't agree with many on this thread and yet we have all sorts of interesting and respectful discussions, including the tangent above about improving the RH GO line. I just don't know what you're even smoking. I'm sorry I'm feeling snippy but it's late and the Patriots won.

 

[44 North]

So, the discussion here has focused on the notion some have posed that an RER could replace the subway. It cannot.

RER and light RT could replace a subway; particularly a very costly all-underground heavy rail subway extension.

I have a Walmart and a Silver City and a massive stone storage facility and another few things that are actually not owned by me but actually Metrus which is owned by ConDrain which is, in case you don't know, one of the biggest developers in the country. So, this is just utter misinformation.

Yeah, well. Developers tend to donate to political parties. And political parties are the ones who draw lines on maps, and support organizations who give arguments as to why it’s imperative to build the lines on those maps. Not accusing anyone per se, but rather pointing out that the last few decades of rapid transit has been built this way. “Places to Grow” is just another name for big time development. Just as NYCC, ECC, STC, and soon VMC were to be CBDs and major growth hubs, and arguments were made as to why major investments in big time rapid transit construction should be made. The arguments turned out to be somewhat flawed when viewed in retrospect. That’s why we have overbuilt transit in some places, and underbuilt transit in others. It's only logical that RHC will follow suit.

because one muncipality building an "our municipality only" solution does NOTHING to help the actual people who live in it who actually travel, many of them every day, in and out and across the border which is, in reality, just some street. By your logic we might as well bar 905 riders from even stepping onto the TTC. The entire point (again, since you have demonstrated no knowledge of either) of Places to Grow and The Big Move is to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said above. The same goes for your totally off-base comments about York Region needing to come up with "an RT system at some point in the the future that fits with their suburban realm." Are you aware of the existence of Viva, a BRT system that PRECISELY fits that definition? Do you understand it eventually has to interface with other transit systems, not all of which will be run by York Region, by definition? Finally, on this point, are you aware that Viva and the local YRT system already have an existing hub amidst this "devalued" wasteland you describe, which also happens to be where the local GO station is?

Bah. I knew this was going to be posted. I’m NOT against rapid transit. And I’m NOT spiteful and positing an ‘us vs them’ argument. I’m simply saying that a light solution can provide far more transit of the exact same variety as the inarguably costliest form of transit (underground heavy rail). Really. Track for track, a light RT solution will give the greatest bang for our buck than a piecemeal extension of our subway. Just as it could’ve in North York, or Etobiocoke, or Vaughan.

"seamless, integrated transit network allowing people to use public transit to travel easily from Hamilton to Newmarket to Oshawa. It’s the final piece in a three-part approach by the Province to prepare the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area for growth and sustained prosperity.)"

Which is exactly why I support a light RT solution instead of a short piecemeal and very costly heavy rail underground solution. And I’m aware that there are subways in TO. But I’m also aware that transit infrastructure has outpaced inflation, and continues to do so. I’m also aware that much of TO’s system runs on the surface, instead of all-underground / only-underground as what’s proposed with a Yonge extension. These costs are absolutely insane, and by their very nature render potential lines as either a) not built at all, b) built, but shortened, c) built, but at the cost of needed investments elsewhere.

What's the worst that could happen if Yonge isn't extended to RHC? The area will still develop, but as slightly lower density than it could've been with a subway line. Not the end of the world by any means.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

RER and light RT could replace a subway; particularly a very costly all-underground heavy rail subway extension.

No. It. Can. Not.
You either did not read what I wrote or did not comprehend it so I will explain it more simply.
In designing the "arbitrary" growth centre they added up how many people an RER can hold and how many people a subway can hold and that's how they came up with their density figures.
If you don't build the RER AND AND AND a subway, you can't get to the same total. Ergo, again, the RER (even with an LRT) does not replace a subway. It's clear you're fixated on how costly a subway is but if you're not going to justify building one under Yonge Street, you might as well do away with the technology entirely.

Yeah, well. Developers tend to donate to political parties. And political parties are the ones who draw lines on maps, and support organizations who give arguments as to why it’s imperative to build the lines on those maps. Not accusing anyone per se, but rather pointing out that the last few decades of rapid transit has been built this way. “Places to Grow” is just another name for big time development\

This is a whole other argument, and besides the point. Langstaff/RHC has been designated a node as far back as (at least) 1991. Obviously developers will profit from intensification. You have still utterly failed to address the point I made up above, using squiggly lines instead of words. This is a natural transit hub because it is where all the lines converge. It is ON Yonge Street, where the 407 and 7 meet, where the existing GO and YRT terminals are. If you're not going to intensify there, why not do away with the Greenbelt, places to grow and let the developers (about whom you are skeptical) just do whatever they want and sprawl forever?

Bah. I knew this was going to be posted. I’m NOT against rapid transit. And I’m NOT spiteful and positing an ‘us vs them’ argument. I’m simply saying that a light solution can provide far more transit of the exact same variety as the inarguably costliest form of transit (underground heavy rail). Really. Track for track, a light RT solution will give the greatest bang for our buck than a piecemeal extension of our subway. Just as it could’ve in North York, or Etobiocoke, or Vaughan.

Wait...you'll have to explain this to me. Are you now arguing they never should have extended the subway to FINCH? Or are you merely arguing that adding North York Centre station was a waste of money? Have you been near Yonge and Finch lately? You'd be quite right to point out that jobs have not materialized there as hoped but to suggest that using the subway to spur intensification there hasn't worked is absurd. It's way too early to make a call on how Vaughan will turn out but it is nonetheless relevant that the planning legislation, and the context, are entirely different (in a good way) from when NYC was planned in the mid-80s.

I'm all for LRT in the right places (let's say, like Scarborough) and think the plan to convert Viva to LRT when warranted is also wise. I nonetheless think the subway going from Finch to 7 is a no-brainer for reasons already listed dozens of times in this thread.

Maybe you knew you were going to get bashed for it but you said YR should come up with their own solution and I pointed out they already did, with Viva. But to make their system work, they need to interface with other systems and because most of their population is adjacent to the Toronto border, proper integration with TTC is absolutely key if you want to do anything to instill a transit-oriented culture and transit-oriented development. And if you can't do that right at Yonge and Steeles, you might as well give up on the whole project, IMHO.

Which is exactly why I support a light RT solution instead of a short piecemeal and very costly heavy rail underground solution.

So, you agree the network should be "seamless" but also want YR residents to take the subway to Finch, an LRT to 7 and then the BRT north from there. I guess my point is, that's not seamless.

I understand subways are expensive but you seem to exaggerate the magnitude by several degrees. By any objective measure, the Yonge extension is more easily justified than Scarborough and arguably even Spadina. Again, I understand your objections (exaggerated though I may feel they are) but this has already been determined.

What's the worst that could happen if Yonge isn't extended to RHC? The area will still develop, but as slightly lower density than it could've been with a subway line. Not the end of the world by any means.

Except if you understood the geography you'd know that the way Langstaff is, in particular, it's a bit of an all or nothing proposition. There's only 1 road in and out and without the required density it will be rather like the 'failed' centres you cited earlier. It's a unique hub and a unique opportunity. Sure, you can shoot it in the head before it even starts, if you like, thinking it will save you a few bucks in upfront costs. But if you're going to require a municipality to do transit-oriented development, watch them propose something more ambitious than you could have asked for, and them deny the transit, be prepared to accept there will be other consequences down the line. "Slightly lower density than it could've been" = "slightly more sprawl somewhere else," and how much money are you really saving then?

 

[Edward]

The subway extension to Highway 7 is certainly needed to build the connected network the Province is pushing for. It makes perfect sense. They should try to do the DRL and Richmond Hill extension at the same time.

 

[Conrad Black]

We're getting off-topic but why couldn't they, in theory?
Anyway, Centerpoint will definitely see redvelopment once the subway is coming. The question is one of scale but I think it's fair to say that Yonge/Steeles will end up looking more or less like Yonge/Sheppard.

Back in the 1980's there were plans to push the subway north to Steeles with Centrepoint (then Town & Country) being redeveloped. I remember seeing a model at the Centrepoint offices of the redevelopment with something like four towers at the northeast corner of the mall lot (next or above the Steeles station). The late 1980's recession killed that idea.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Back in the 1980's there were plans to push the subway north to Steeles with Centrepoint (then Town & Country) being redeveloped. I remember seeing a model at the Centrepoint offices of the redevelopment with something like four towers at the northeast corner of the mall lot (next or above the Steeles station). The late 1980's recession killed that idea.

Centerpoint just did some minor redevelopment on their south side but with Target going the way of the dodo, I'd think the owners of that site would be pushing for the subway as hard as anyone. The mall probably does OK for what it is but they keep losing one of their stable anchor tenants and need something else to stabilize or grow.

The mall is just primed for redevelopment and your reminder that a subway to Steeles made sense and had redevelopment on the table THIRTY years ago is a reminder of just how ready this area is for intensification (and, by extension - no pun really intended), how far north that readiness has moved since then.

What's really sad is that if we'd actually pushed the subway to Steeles, we'd probably be looking at that move as short-sighted by now. But we didn't build a damned thing, and there are still people who think it would be a worthwhile move in 2020. I don't get it at all.

 

[nfitz]

The subway extension to Highway 7 is certainly needed to build the connected network the Province is pushing for. It makes perfect sense. They should try to do the DRL and Richmond Hill extension at the same time.

What's the difference between extending the subway to Highway 7 and the Richmond Hill extension? On the subway extension the proposed Langstaff/Longbridge station is on Yonge just south of the 407, while the proposed Richmond Hill terminus is on just north of Highway 7 near Langstaff GO station.

 

[BMO]

edit: nvm.. misunderstood something

 

[BMO]

Yeah the geography of Steeles would make it difficult to have a traditional GO station with a vast sea of parking, but I wonder if (given sufficient demand being proven, and therefore also requiring some form of higher-order transit along Steeles itself to feed into the station - hence my Steeles LRT comments) an RER-style infill station could be slid into place along the existing corridor, lacking any parking, similar to Bloor Station on the Kitchener Line - not to replace Old Cummer but in addition to it.

In my own professional opinion, based on what's around the GO tracks at Steeles, and the socio-economic situation in that area the likelihood of GO being able to build anything with a connection to Steeles would be HIGHLY unlikely and super expensive to buyout the necessary properties. You're essentially going to tackle one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in York Region. It would probably be more cost-effective to improve connections at Cummer Station, and Leslie Station connection to Oriole. Anything's possible though with enough political will to back it up. Politically this is a no-go and would waste more time and effort than what it's worth.

As for your 200 prime acres of developable land at Yonge & Hwy 7, would that be in the southeast quadrant of the access ramp from Yonge to 7 where (according to Google Maps - sorry, I don't get out this way much) there's current a large empty field with a pond on it? Or are you also counting redevelopment of the large plaza between the access road and High Tech Road, adjacent to Langstaff GO? Because if we're also counting land available for redevelopment from existing non-transit-oriented retail uses as up for grabs in this equation, then Yonge & Steeles has the vast expense of Centerpoint Mall going for it, as well as multiple old strip plazas along the east side of Yonge south of the intersection, a gas station at the northeast corner, and more strip plazas on the north side of Steeles west of the intersection.

Similarly, does this massive intensification plan you speak of for Yonge & 7 include massive improvements to the streetscape of Highway 7 itself through Richmond Hill? Because as it stands, this is still the stretch of 7 that acts like a controlled-access expressway (dating from before construction of the 407), with almost nothing fronting onto the road itself, and access to 7 from intersecting arterials provided by access ramps rather than at-grade intersections, to keep car traffic flowing faster. Not the sort of road that lends itself well to street-fronting or transit-oriented development very well, without a great overhaul at least.

Yonge & Highway 7 will supposedly get some grade changes based on what I've been reading, along with potentially burying the hydro corridor in this section. They essentially want to reduce the barriers in the area between the north and south of HWY 407. If you look at it right now you have the hydro corridor, hwy 407, a retention pond, a cemetery and a woodlot in that area that don't necessarily provide the best walkability. Yonge has been greatly intensifying north of HWY 7 and it's most certainly just a matter of when the subway comes the developers will begin changing the area. It's really the heart of York Region where you can connect to a line that can basically take you to any corner of York Region from RHC. And all this is without even considering that the 407 Transitway will be built to connect here as well.

Side rant: improved GO-RER-like improvements to Richmond Hill line is really geared for Union-bound trips from people coming north of RHC. If you're coming from Yonge & Steeles or Clark, or even Centre, it makes more sense to drive and take the subway. People coming from Richmond Hill who want to go to NYCC will still opt to go to Finch for the subway...and I suspect there's a sizeable amount of people that do this trip as opposed to going all the way to Union. I'd imagine a good chunk of people already opt to take Richmond Hill GO for Union-bound trips.

 

[44 North]

No. It. Can. Not.
You either did not read what I wrote or did not comprehend it so I will explain it more simply.
In designing the "arbitrary" growth centre they added up how many people an RER can hold and how many people a subway can hold and that's how they came up with their density figures.
If you don't build the RER AND AND AND a subway, you can't get to the same total. Ergo, again, the RER (even with an LRT) does not replace a subway. It's clear you're fixated on how costly a subway is but if you're not going to justify building one under Yonge Street, you might as well do away with the technology entirely.

It’s very easy to skew data to get the results needed to justify a particular project. It’s nothing new, and it’s been going on for quite some time. That’s why we have such a threadbare system, with continual extensions to barren fields built in place of lines needed decades ago.

This is a whole other argument, and besides the point. Langstaff/RHC has been designated a node as far back as (at least) 1991. Obviously developers will profit from intensification. You have still utterly failed to address the point I made up above, using squiggly lines instead of words. This is a natural transit hub because it is where all the lines converge. It is ON Yonge Street, where the 407 and 7 meet, where the existing GO and YRT terminals are. If you're not going to intensify there, why not do away with the Greenbelt, places to grow and let the developers (about whom you are skeptical) just do whatever they want and sprawl forever?

I’m not arguing that it’s a natural transit hub, nor am I arguing against development or intensification. It very much is a hub, it should be developed, and railed transit should be built. I’m simply arguing that an underground heavy rail mass transit system (i.e – a subway) is not commuter rail. And that a ‘light’ RT system, supplemented with greater investment in RER, can theoretically provide much better use of dollars spent than a multi-billion dollar piecemeal extension of a subway – particularly in a suburban realm.

Where an arbitrarily-named “growth centre†differs from the Greenbelt is that the Greenbelt is legislated that it can’t be built on. A growth node is merely a place zoned as higher than normal density. And even without zoning “centre†lands for very high-density growth instead of realistic mid-high growth, there are many locations and arterials around York Region that can develop and allow its population targets to be met. The municipal boundaries wouldn’t have to move one inch north. And besides, YR still has ample unbuilt designated expansion lands before they reach the Greenbelt. Simply put, growth can and will occur outside of vaguely identified “centres†without having to sprawl. Toronto is a good example.

Wait...you'll have to explain this to me. Are you now arguing they never should have extended the subway to FINCH? Or are you merely arguing that adding North York Centre station was a waste of money? Have you been near Yonge and Finch lately? You'd be quite right to point out that jobs have not materialized there as hoped but to suggest that using the subway to spur intensification there hasn't worked is absurd. It's way too early to make a call on how Vaughan will turn out but it is nonetheless relevant that the planning legislation, and the context, are entirely different (in a good way) from when NYC was planned in the mid-80s.

The jobs haven’t materialized, the area is way out of whack with pre-existing low-density neighbourhoods outside the built-up arterials, and the area is a gridlock nightmare at rush hour. Not as many people take transit as expected, and the area has been zoned to a level of density that many argue is too high. We have a similar situation with the Sheppard stub. NIMBYism also showed that planning at the local level can oftentimes clash with planning on the Prov level. As for VMC...it will probably turn out like ECC, NYCC, and STC: Tall buildings, condos; but less of a hub than it was claimed to be, and less of a CBD than it was claimed to be. Not to mention overbuilt and underused transit that came at the expense of actual priorities elsewhere.

I'm all for LRT in the right places (let's say, like Scarborough) and think the plan to convert Viva to LRT when warranted is also wise. I nonetheless think the subway going from Finch to 7 is a no-brainer for reasons already listed dozens of times in this thread.

Maybe you knew you were going to get bashed for it but you said YR should come up with their own solution and I pointed out they already did, with Viva. But to make their system work, they need to interface with other systems and because most of their population is adjacent to the Toronto border, proper integration with TTC is absolutely key if you want to do anything to instill a transit-oriented culture and transit-oriented development. And if you can't do that right at Yonge and Steeles, you might as well give up on the whole project, IMHO.

I knew I was going to get bashed for it. I’ve grown accustomed to this, whether on the DRL thread or when dealing with FordNation types who seem to think the only thing we can and should be building is underground heavy rail subways. I mention elevated, trenched, ground level (but fully grade-separate) ‘light’ rapid transit, or improved investment in commuter rail – and I get falsely accused of being anti-transit and not forward-thinking.

And I’m not opposed to integration. Transferring between modes or vehicles is a common practice and by no means systems aren’t “integratedâ€. As for claiming that a light RT on Yonge north of Finch somehow clashes with highly ambiguous terms like “transit-oriented culture/developmentâ€... I don’t really get that. I look at many suburban highrise developments in and around the inner GTA (even if next to a subway station), and I can’t see a transit-oriented culture, nor do I see TOD. Ample parking always abounds.

So, you agree the network should be "seamless" but also want YR residents to take the subway to Finch, an LRT to 7 and then the BRT north from there. I guess my point is, that's not seamless.

I understand subways are expensive but you seem to exaggerate the magnitude by several degrees. By any objective measure, the Yonge extension is more easily justified than Scarborough and arguably even Spadina. Again, I understand your objections (exaggerated though I may feel they are) but this has already been determined.

A VIVA LRT or 407 LRT can very much integrate with existing TTC or GO stations. A subway is going to have to terminate somewhere, and a different mode will carry the rest – whether at Finch or at Langstaff. But I still stand by my point that the same investment in all-underground suburban subway expansion of a threadbare system which is already experiencing capacity issues can be better spent on a mode that offers broader RT coverage to a larger number of people. It can also be better spent on improved GO rail and RER. I’m not exaggerating the costs of subway construction. Look at the numbers. Compare it with other cities and with other modes. On a per km basis, this Yonge extension would be one of the most expensive transit projects in the world, track-for-track. Just as Eglinton is, and the DRL will be (if built).

Except if you understood the geography you'd know that the way Langstaff is, in particular, it's a bit of an all or nothing proposition. There's only 1 road in and out and without the required density it will be rather like the 'failed' centres you cited earlier. It's a unique hub and a unique opportunity. Sure, you can shoot it in the head before it even starts, if you like, thinking it will save you a few bucks in upfront costs. But if you're going to require a municipality to do transit-oriented development, watch them propose something more ambitious than you could have asked for, and them deny the transit, be prepared to accept there will be other consequences down the line. "Slightly lower density than it could've been" = "slightly more sprawl somewhere else," and how much money are you really saving then?

Again, I’m not opposed to development; whether RHC, or elsewhere. Nor am I opposed to rapid transit expansion; whether RHC, or elsewhere. And RHC is not that unique. A sea of low-density residential homes surrounding a few tracts of vacant or underutilized land...sounds like much of our ‘growth centres’ over the years.

And it’s a bit fallacious to claim that if a subway isn’t built to RHC then we’ll have more suburban sprawl elsewhere. Even with RHC having a subway, YR will still sprawl on unprotected lands and land currently ID’d for expansion. But the legislated Greenbelt lands should remain protected - hopefully. And alternately, if the subway isn’t built this future will still very much remain; albeit with RHC lands zoned as slightly lower density than they would’ve been with a very costly and overbuilt subway on Yonge. Long and short, YR’s population targets will be met.

 

[nfitz]

No. It. Can. Not. ...

Over 1,500 words without a single piece of quoted text?

This would be a lot easier to read and follow, if you quoted relevant text, to make it clear what/who you are replying to.