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

[TheTigerMaster]

What exactly is the planned ridership of the Yonge north corridor with the RH GO RER?

 

[Cobra]

What exactly is the planned ridership of the Yonge north corridor with the RH GO RER?

Since there won't be an all day GO RER on the line, I'm guessing that alternative has no data...which is the problem from my point of view. Shouldn't this option be explored and analyzed before spending billions more to build a subway?

 

[LNahid2000]

LOL - you don't know what you're talking about all!
Some people on this board know lots of stuff and have strong opinions different than me; good on em.
Some people on this board don't know jack and have opinions just as strong. You're clearly in that category.

I don't even know what you're talking about - you probably don't either, but perhaps it's Leitchcroft, which is actually west of Leslie; there's nothing right now on the block west of the 404, except a Hilton and some other offices. LOL!

The subway runs UNDER YONGE - that's Markham, not Richmond Hill. Come back after you've googled "Langstaff Gateway" or read back through these pages. There are plenty of people here skeptical about LG/Richmond Hill Centre and whether a subway is needed etc., but at least they know the plan exists.You're several km off the map.

LOL, indeed.

My point was that most people in Markham live nowhere near Yonge St. Nice essay though, and thanks for the insults.

 

[salsa]

First, we WANT suburbs to build development that does not require cars.
Second, the PROVINCE mandated where they grow and the PROVINCE allotted population targets.
Third, the market intensifies in prime locations, especially along transportation routes.

The region isn't CHOOSING to develop that way. It's the provincial law. Jeeze.

Well clearly the provincial law does not go far enough to stop some of the idiocy in York Region.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...money_ahead_of_good_planning_critics_say.html

 

[44 North]

That would be funny - Markham seems to be able to do it, and they certainly didn't have a subway lying around. What's so special about Richmond Hill that requires - *requires* - a subway - and nothing but a subway?

The RHC/Langstaff Gateway plans and development between Steeles and 7 most definitely do not 'require a subway and only a subway'. This isn't exactly a stacked deck situation, though some would like to make it seem so. Something above BRT-lite is definitely needed, but not a Line 1 extension. And that's including the fanciful ultra-high residential/employment densities and transit mode share projections (which simple logic and past history says will not occur as envisioned). And that's also including non-existent major trip-generating ingredients found in a typical centres (e.g malls, civic/cultural institutions, schools, hospitals, etc)...things that York Region decided to plonk down elsewhere.

Langstaff Gateway, which is a major component of the Centre plan, has some glaring issues. Only like 100 metres actually fronts onto Yonge, with the majority of the site stretching almost 2km away from the proposed subway station. How they managed to calculate the ludicrous ~65% transit mode share is beyond me. Calthorpe (the visionary who crafted the site and is praised by some to be the world's greatest urban planner) actually discussed using a pod system to ferry riders across this centre to the subway station. I'd argue that such far-fetched level of whimsy puts Doug's monorail plan to shame.

Those in York Region like to use talking points from fallacious reports, proclaiming that a subway and only a subway is needed (this one in particular is worth reading just for a laugh). But the reality is that even if the somewhat unrealistic ultra-high projections for jobs, skyscrapers, transit mode shares, etc came to fruition - the subway is not required. There are numerous ways of at providing necessary transit, but they've been purposefully excluded from any and all debate (for what can only be deduced as political reasons, and IMO to the detriment of York Region residents and transit users). So far it seems that the few points that make the subway a 'requirement' are that:

-it was "promised" (which apparently means it's written in stone and a done deal)
-residents along Yonge between Steeles and 7 (many of whom make Nayshunals look like saints) can't ever accept losing a lane of traffic
-and the old go-to line that "this is YONGE street!!", ergo subway needed

Those are the only things that make the subway a requirement. Other than that, light rail and GO improvements would be more than ample north of Steeles for the next century.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Since there won't be an all day GO RER on the line, I'm guessing that alternative has no data...which is the problem from my point of view. Shouldn't this option be explored and analyzed before spending billions more to build a subway?

Wow. Well that completely explains why Toronto City Planning didn't specify a mode for Yonge North. We need to determine the impacts of RER before spending 4 billion on this thing before appoving anything. If an LRT, or a combination of LRT and subway, can do the job sufficiently then that's what should be built.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

My point was that most people in Markham live nowhere near Yonge St. Nice essay though, and thanks for the insults.

Your point still eludes me.
Most of Vaughan is well west of Yonge Street and all of Richmond Hill is north of Highway 7; it's still the densest part of of those municipalities and the most centrally located.
Most of Toronto's population doesn't live near Yonge Street either. So what?

Well clearly the provincial law does not go far enough to stop some of the idiocy in York Region.
View attachment 68931

We're pulling out red herrings from 2012? I might as well pull out how brilliant it is for Toronto to passing tax increases below the rate of inflation.

Anyway - read the article: It says people think York Region is encouraging more sprawl to reduce its debt. That's a fair charge. But it doesn't remotely to apply to THIS thread, which is about a project that even if does not overtly reduce sprawl, certainly fast-tracks development that is anything but.

The RHC/Langstaff Gateway plans and development between Steeles and 7 most definitely do not 'require a subway and only a subway'.

Look - despite what some may think, I don't wholly object to an LRT or even your Metro Rail idea. I even agree they should have done a more detailed study of the various modes before concluding, "subway!"

If there was an LRT, the growth centre numbers would be downscaled accordingly. It could still be a viable centre. There would still be intensification along Yonge, just less of it. Probably/hopefully we can agree on that. An LRT would, as far as I'm concerned, indisputably be progress. I still also think it would be inadequate.

Nonetheless, the plans most certainly DO "require" a subway in that, as I know you know, the Lagnstaff plans started with the presumption of SUBWAY capacity (and the other transit) at that location. It doesn't mean there is no alternative, but it was planned with that assumption. So too are the official plans of YR, Markham, Vaughan and RH and the Secondary Plan Toronto did for Yonge North as well. ALL of those would have to change if there were an LRT instead.

As you also know, we come to different conclusions after that. I agree with Bill Fisch (and Alan Shefman!) in the article above, that LRT and BRT are more than sufficient for everywhere else in the region but subway makes sense here. It makes sense, IMHO, because it doesn't make sense to introduce a new mode in the corridor and because a lesser technology would, by definition, mean less capacity and an inability to maximize the corridor's development/ridership potential. In the short term, in particular, I suspect LRT looks adequate. In the long-term, my prediction is it will look very short-sighted.

Calthorpe (the visionary who crafted the site and is praised by some to be the world's greatest urban planner) actually discussed using a pod system to ferry riders across this centre to the subway station. I'd argue that such far-fetched level of whimsy puts Doug's monorail plan to shame.

Some of us on this board are lay people who just love urban stuff. Some of us are professional researchers and/or planners. I guess my point is, no matter what any of us think of him, Peter Calthorpe is doing just fine.

He proposed - in the long term - a PRT system, which is a real thing. But that was a full-buildout idea. He was perfectly fine with a local circulator bus to shuttle people to the stations during our lifetimes.

-it was "promised" (which apparently means it's written in stone and a done deal)
-residents along Yonge between Steeles and 7 (many of whom make Nayshunals look like saints) can't ever accept losing a lane of traffic
-and the old go-to line that "this is YONGE street!!", ergo subway needed

I've only said the 3rd and even that's out of context. Intensification is a given, from the 401 north. Toronto's own plans are now based on he presumption of a subway north of Finch. There is no reason to think that pattern will stop before Major Mac (not that I'm advocating a subway to there!) unless it is constrained by infrastructure. Put the same subway under Bayview and you don't get the same intensification; that's the point about Yonge.

Those are the only things that make the subway a requirement. Other than that, light rail and GO improvements would be more than ample north of Steeles for the next century.

Just like the things everyone else here - including me - says about the future, that's an opinion. not a fact. I think you're wrong but, you know, if they announced an LRT from Finch to 7 tomorrow I'd grumble and say it's dumb and shortsighted I'd still say it's progress, finally.

Wow. Well that completely explains why Toronto City Planning didn't specify a mode for Yonge North..

You mean on that map a few weeks ago? Well, they posted this map yesterday and, sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but it's a subway again...

No LRT. No Metro Rail. No big question mark. On official City of Toronto Planning Department material. Nice letter M to mark it.

Oh, and the city's planning department also affirmed a subway here. So....yeah.

 

[LNahid2000]

Your point still eludes me.
Most of Vaughan is well west of Yonge Street and all of Richmond Hill is north of Highway 7; it's still the densest part of of those municipalities and the most centrally located.
Most of Toronto's population doesn't live near Yonge Street either. So what?

It sure isn't the densest part of Markham...

 

[44 North]

If there was an LRT, the growth centre numbers would be downscaled accordingly. It could still be a viable centre. There would still be intensification along Yonge, just less of it. Probably/hopefully we can agree on that. An LRT would, as far as I'm concerned, indisputably be progress. I still also think it would be inadequate.

Nonetheless, the plans most certainly DO "require" a subway in that, as I know you know, the Lagnstaff plans started with the presumption of SUBWAY capacity (and the other transit) at that location. It doesn't mean there is no alternative, but it was planned with that assumption. So too are the official plans of YR, Markham, Vaughan and RH and the Secondary Plan Toronto did for Yonge North as well. ALL of those would have to change if there were an LRT instead.

Not true. There would be no downscaling. The growth and demand are not contingent on a subway, and subway is not a requirement to meet the projections for buildout.

 

[ksun]

OK I don't understand one thing: if one argues that ridership is sufficient in Yonge North for a subway, then why don't we build a subway along King/Queen st first, since the ridership of 504/501 is four times as much? Why do the people in York region feel more entitled to a subway ride to downtown (when they don't even pay Toronto property tax) when residents along King/Queen corridor have to suffer huge congestion every day?

 

[minilude]

I agree a queen subway should happen, but look at what terrible job Toronto council has done in realizing it. I'm suggesting maybe York Region to foot more bills in the north project and leave Toronto some money to ink their downtown problem. I remember reading somewhere that your lovely Toronto councillors said ridership is not the only factor when they plan transits. lolll I guess the downtown voice is not loud enough?

oh I found the quote, it's just in today's Globe

“Extending the Bloor-Danforth subway line into Scarborough is an important addition to our transit network and will provide critical transit for Scarborough,” mayoral spokeswoman Amanda Galbraith said in a statement. “Ridership numbers are always lowest at the ends of the line, but that doesn’t mean that each region of our city should not be served by high-speed transit.”

Both Chief Planner Jennifer Keesmaat and Mr. Tory have stressed to reporters in recent weeks that ridership is not the only factor when making transit decisions.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Not true. There would be no downscaling. The growth and demand are not contingent on a subway, and subway is not a requirement to meet the projections for buildout.

I'm asking sincerely, what makes you say that?
I can tell you, for a fact, I've personally spoken with Peter Calthorpe and what I have repeatedly said is what he said: They looked at the ridership capacity of the subway + transitway + all-day GO [RER, as we now call it] + the Viva lines, came up with the numbers and density based on that. That's why all the phasing triggers are related to it and I'm sure you can find it reiterated any number of places. The subway was explicitly built into his plans though you'd be correct in pointing out this is less true on the RH side of the centre.

I don't want to rudely say "You're wrong!" (believe it or not!) but I really don't understand why you think that and I can only tell you, sincerely, I know what you are saying is incorrect, at least in regards to Langstaff Gateway, specifically.

EDIT: To add, I can't find it online but IBI Group prepared a report for Markham that explicitly substantiates what I'm talking about. I'm aware it does not say the word "subway" but here is an excerpt from the Markham Secondary Plan for Langstaff that references it:

4.1.3.3 Langstaff Gateway Transportation Study
The Langstaff Land Use and Built Form Master Plan Transportation Report (2009) was prepared by IBI Group. The study adopted the approach of planning and designing for non-motorized transportation modes as a first priority. Recognizing a transit first approach, the study also acknowledges that the timing of transit improvements needs to coincide with phasing of development within Langstaff Gateway. The study provides for a number of internal and external network considerations and improvements and supports a phased approach with development triggers based on various infrastructure improvements and monitoring mechanisms.

Ah - and I can't find the actual IBI Report, but there's a summary of their work here, starting on P33.
...and a 2011 report by Genivar, similarly explaining how the triggers relate to subway capacity, specifically and explicitly. Things like "critical" and "Depends on the subway" are all over the place. It should be more than obvious that the reduced capacity of LRT requires adjustment to all this detailed work.

Why do the people in York region feel more entitled to a subway ride to downtown (when they don't even pay Toronto property tax) when residents along King/Queen corridor have to suffer huge congestion every day?

This is the problem with a thread like this - it's not about being ENTITLED and it's not about a pissing contest between various projects. Municipalities are planning within the context of the provincial planning framework. York Region is doing EXACTLY what it's supposed to be doing and, as far as I'm concerned the only issues worth discussing are
a) Per 44North, what the ideal mode is
b) How to resolve downstream capacity issues

If Toronto wants to build a subway on King, or make it streetcar-only, or build a Scarborough subway because they think they're ENTITLED to it, that's fine. It's that attitude, in part, that has lead to Toronto not having a DRL already. If you can't start with the basic idea that we're a single region, a single commutershed with shared economic interests, I don't know what the point even discussing transit projects is.

 

[crs1026]

Wow. Well that completely explains why Toronto City Planning didn't specify a mode for Yonge North. We need to determine the impacts of RER before spending 4 billion on this thing before appoving anything. If an LRT, or a combination of LRT and subway, can do the job sufficiently then that's what should be built.

A practical question - how long do we want Line 1 to be? Does it just keep getting extended every decade or so as the north end develops?

There are practical reasons - at some point, operators will need a rest break on line - and there are planning reasons - how far can we push this line nothwards before the pressure to develop threatens the greenbelts around the north end?. We absolutely have to preserve an outer limit to development in the GTA.

I don't have statistics on what the longest subway lines in the world are, but I wonder if Line 1 is getting as long as it ought to be. It seems reasonable that there would be a transition to LRT somewhere between Lake Simcoe and Steeles. Where should it be?

- Paul

 

[Cobra]

A practical question - how long do we want Line 1 to be? Does it just keep getting extended every decade or so as the north end develops?

There are practical reasons - at some point, operators will need a rest break on line - and there are planning reasons - how far can we push this line nothwards before the pressure to develop threatens the greenbelts around the north end?. We absolutely have to preserve an outer limit to development in the GTA.

I don't have statistics on what the longest subway lines in the world are, but I wonder if Line 1 is getting as long as it ought to be. It seems reasonable that there would be a transition to LRT somewhere between Lake Simcoe and Steeles. Where should it be?

- Paul

Steeles

 

[LNahid2000]

A practical question - how long do we want Line 1 to be? Does it just keep getting extended every decade or so as the north end develops?

Line 1 should go to North Bay. Everyone deserves a subway.