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

Conrad Black said:
The problem is that the taxpayers in 416 pay to subsidize the TTC through their property taxes. Taxpayers in 905 do not subsidize the TTC through their property taxes.
Click to expand...

This is a bit disingenuous.

TTC funding derives from three sources: 69% fares, 24% property taxes, and 7% provincial gas tax.

The Toronto municipality's property taxes revenues are 60% residential (including multiresidential), 36% commercial, and 4% industrial (2008 budget summary). What you're talking about is the residential portion of property tax -- the commercial taxes are very much fed by 905ers commuting to Toronto, including those who employ them, the restaurants they eat at, and the stores at which they shop at lunchtime and evenings and weekends.

So, when you say that 416 taxpayers are subsidizing the TTC and, if 905ers want to use it they should subsidize it to, then -- even accepting the implicit, and ludicrous, argument that it is not of benefit to 416 residential taxpayers that their municipality attract workers and shoppers from adjacent municipalities -- what you really mean is that 416 taxpayers are subsidizing about 15% of the TTC's costs through property taxes.

EDIT: does anyone know revenue/cost ratios for the TTC by mode of transportation (bus vs streetcar vs subway)? It occurs to me that the cost recovery ratios for almost all TTC bus lines are well below the TTC's overall 70%-ish cost recovery ratio.

We know that very few TTC bus or streetcar routes, the lowest cost-recovery services, are much used by 905 residents. Bus routes that actually enter the 905 are subcontracted to the TTC by YRT. And any TTC buses hopped on by 905 residents avoiding the double fare tend to be high cost-recovery routes.

So it is hard not to think that Toronto residents' 15% property tax contribution to the TTC is mostly or entirely to the benefit of Toronto residents, and does not "benefit" 905 system-users whatsoever. (Again, I use this term a bit tongue in cheek. It seems pretty clear that hauling in 905ers to provide labour for Toronto's corporations, shoppers for its restaurants and stores, and consumers of its shows, museums, and other attractions, is a significant benefit to Toronto. If Toronto property taxpayers were subsidizing any 905ers' integration with Toronto at all, surely that would be more of an investment in Toronto's economy than anything else. Thing is, as suggested above, it's not clear that that is taking place anyway.)
 
Last edited:
Steve Munro has some excellent posts on his site about the Richmond Hill extension and the impact on the Yonge Line south of there. I agree with about 75% of what he says, but he argues very well. Amongst what he suggests: A DRL Subway all the way to Don Mills and Eglinton and a LRT beyond that, with a transfer node between Eglinton LRT, DRL and Don Mills-Downtown Subway.

He doesn't suggest a Sheppard West extension to connect to Wilson, instead advocating better use of Davisville and some pocket storage tracks in the RH extension for AM service starts (which I don't quite agree - I think Davisville could be closed, except for a few storage/service tracks, and the land sold for a nice sum).
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
I don't know that anyone on these boards is really against the DRL - it's the TTC who seem to be against it, for whatever nutty reason. Part of this is because they're stubborn and part of it is because we're trying to do two things at the same time, I think:
1) Develop a non-existent transit culture in the burbs before gridlock overtakes us
2) Make up for years of neglecting to develop transit in the core.

Neither should take place independent of the other, IMHO, but I feel I've seen many insisting that #2 trumps #1.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the powers that be are insisting that #1 trump #2. Besides, developing a transit culture in the suburbs doesn't necessarily mean building subways to the suburbs. Improving bus service, improving how streets and neighbourhoods are designed, and building regional rail (as per the Metrolinx RTP) is a much cheaper and more effective way to achieve that goal. That's not to say that the Yonge line shuldn't be extended, it probably should. But not before a DRL is built.

edit - the experience of Montreal is a good example of how building a transit culture in the suburbs is useless unless the downtown transit system has the capacity to handle all the new riders. Montreal is finding out the hard way that it doesn't. Toronto already knows that it doesn't, yet it's doing nothing to fix the problem.
 
Last edited:
In the event that this goes through, is there a plan to sell of most of the bus terminals/parking area at Finch Station. From what I understand, most bus and park-n-ride trips will be diverted to the gargantuan Steeles megastation, Richmond Hill Station or Bunker Station. That would leave the GO/VIVA Station, most of the TTC's current bus bays and nearly all of the park-n-ride spaces redundant. If the hydro lines could be buried (is this technically possible?) between Maxome & Talbot, that would be quite a pretty parcel of land that could be pawned off. CityPlace Mk. III baby! :)
 
MisterF said:
Besides, developing a transit culture in the suburbs doesn't necessarily mean building subways to the suburbs. Improving bus service, improving how streets and neighbourhoods are designed, and building regional rail (as per the Metrolinx RTP) is a much cheaper and more effective way to achieve that goal.
Click to expand...

First, regional rail does not build a transit culture -- it builds a commuter culture.

Second, a transit culture already exists in the areas we're talking about -- which has resulted in bus overcrowding, clogged streets, and a Finch station that is the third-busiest on the subway (and the busiest non subway connector).

That's not to say that the Yonge line shuldn't be extended, it probably should. But not before a DRL is built.
Click to expand...

The Yonge line extension is needed. The DRL is needed. They should be undertaken immediately and in parallel, just as three Transfer City lines are undertaken immediately and in parallel. Playing them off against each other is exactly the beggar-thy-neighbourism which has crippled Toronto's transit.
 
Disparishun said:
First, regional rail does not build a transit culture -- it builds a commuter culture.

Second, a transit culture already exists in the areas we're talking about -- which has resulted in bus overcrowding, clogged streets, and a Finch station that is the third-busiest on the subway (and the busiest non subway connector).



The Yonge line extension is needed. The DRL is needed. They should be undertaken immediately and in parallel, just as three Transfer City lines are undertaken immediately and in parallel. Playing them off against each other is exactly the beggar-thy-neighbourism which has crippled Toronto's transit.
Click to expand...
Regional/express rail will more closely resemble a subway than existing GO trains, especially if we're comparing it to suburban subway station spacings and train frequencies. I disagree that a heavy rail subway will be any more effective at building a transit culture in the suburbs than regional rail.

I'm not playing them off against each other. I'm just saying that the Yonge extension won't work as well as it could without a DRL. I think we agree on that. It should be noted, however, that the DRL's projected ridership is almost as much as the entire Bloor-Danforth line, over a much shorter distance. It would benefit far more people than the Yonge extension.

Or put it this way - a DRL could be used to its full benefit without a Yonge extension. The opposite isn't true.
 
Disparishun said:
First, regional rail does not build a transit culture -- it builds a commuter culture.
Click to expand...
I've gotta disagree with this one. The current GO service creates a commuter culture. The fact that the majority of lines only have service that meet the 9-5 commuter schedule creates a commuter culture. More people would be willing to leave their cars behind when they came downtown if there was an option to do so. It might not create a downtown "transit culture" but it's better than nothing. It does exist in pretty much every surrounding city, but to a much lesser degree. If Metrolinx makes TOD a priority as stated in their green (or white?) papers then I think we can start to see a greater one emerge.
 
There is no transit culture created by the Lakeshore line the same way there is no transit culture created by the regional rail systems of New York, which is by far the most-developed system of its kind in North America.

But regional rail in New York has only reinforced dependence on the automobile in New York area. Local transit service in New York's post-war suburbs pales in comparison to the services provided by the TTC, MT, BT, YRT, and DRT. And so Toronto's suburbs actually have more of a transit culture and the ridership is much higher.

We can continue to build a transit culture in our suburbs as long as GO service is not expanded and prevent our system from becoming like New York's.
 
I can tell you that the weakness of New York's suburban bus networks has absolutely nothing to do with the (relative) strength of its regional rail. Regional rail helps suburban bus networks by providing a backbone and destination for suburban bus networks.

The key is to treat the regional rail stations as the heart of suburban neighbourhoods. We haven't successfully done that anywhere. Even the new Downtown Markham development treats Unionville GO station as an afterthought at the fringe. Same with Seaton and Cornell. It should be the heart of the development, surrounded by the mixed-use and highest-density buildings. It's crazy that Mississauga Centre, by far Toronto's largest suburban centre, isn't directly served by regional rail.

Queensville is another example. It's simply farmland now. We should follow the European model and build a spur of the Bradford line into the heart of the development before it's built. It costs a fortune to follow the Toronto model and try to tunnel under existing auto-centric development.

We do have two cases that inspire optimism. Vaughan Corporate Centre and, potentially, Richmond Hill Centre. Both will be built around existing, high-order transit facilities. I'm wary because the municipalities in question have pretty poor planning track records and the sites are already partially developed with highly auto-centric big box development, but if they're willing to tear down the WalMarts, those sites have an enormous amount of potential, particularly because they'll be served with real, high-speed, frequent, and all-day rapid transit.

The important fact to retain here is that people are going to commute to work. People change jobs far too often these days to follow the 1910s model and buy a house next to the plant where you'll work for the rest of your life. Not to mention two-income families where one may not work anywhere near the other. The only question is whether people commute by car or by transit, and good regional rail will play a major part in tipping the equation toward transit.
 
Last edited:
Some additional cost breakdowns and details:

Toronto Executive Committee is to consider a report on Jan 5th and the project could move into the 6 month transit EA stage fairly quickly from that point on. Construction could start in 2011. The report recommends that negotiations surrounding funding for the project be initiated between the city, province, Metrolinx, York Region and the feds. It is recommended that negotiations to be based on the underlying principle that the City of Toronto will not shoulder any capital costs (cost to be covered by MoveOntario 2020 & the Feds) or added operating costs for the extension. Another proposed condition of the funding discussions is that the project assumes all costs associated with the requirement to increase capacity at Yonge-Bloor Station and on the North York Service Road.

Costs:
Property Acquisition $125m
Tunnels & operating features $600m
Engineering $675m
New Subway Trains $240m
Six Stations $650m
  • Steeles—$195 million
  • Richmond Hill Centre—$160 million
  • Langstaff/Longbridge—$85 million
  • Clark—$70 million
  • Cummer/Drewry—$70 million
  • Royal Orchard—$65 million
  • Finch Station improvements—$5 million
 
Mike in TO said:
[*]Steeles—$195 million
[*]Richmond Hill Centre—$160 million
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

Remarkably, the station at Steeles (major intersection, but otherwise an ordinary location with two frequent buses and a few minor routes) is scheduled to cost more than one at Richmond Hill Centre (subway terminus, intermodal subway/GO/VIVA mega-hub, Place To Grow).
 
Why are the costs for stations in Toronto so exhorbitant? Are the stations going to be paved with gold or marble? I don't think so. Why does a tiny station like Clark or Royal Orchard or Drewry need $70M for? All it needs is 4 basic entrances, a platform, some stairs, escalators and an elevator. That is all. I highly doubt it costs $70M to do this.

The TTC needs to trip the station costs and focus more on service and building stations that are easy to maintain and are clean. $70M on Clark is wasteful, but spending $5m to renovate Finch station is badly needed. Maybe we can switch the dollars around and renovate Finch for $70M and build Clark or Drewry for $5M?

Finch station is a huge gateway hub right now but it looks awful, dirty, ugly bus terminal, missing roofing/tiling in the mezzanine under the bus terminal and construction for the ventilation system that seems to be going nowhere. Why does it take 2.5 years to upgrade a ventilation system at Finch? Most of the time I use the station during the business hours and nothing seems to be happening on the surface of in the station itself.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top