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

[Cobra]

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.



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.

There's no all day 2 direction GO RER planned on the Richmond Hill line so the data is flawed/incomplete.

Also I think we can all agree that after the Sheppard Subway experience, we're tired of the following argument:

Build it and they'll come

 

[44 North]

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.

Look at the projected peak/daily ridership #s for the stations north of Steeles (ones that incl updated secondary plans). Then look at parts of the wider transportation network that were omitted to obtain these numbers. Then look at previous projections (that actually included the future Big Move network as a whole - while also including highest achieved future UGC residential/employment densities and high-end transit mode share assumptions). The numbers show that Yonge North subway ridership (peak and daily avg) are nowhere near the currently-quoted projections, and north of Steeles are in the capacity range of low/mid range LRT. In other words: the subway isn't necessary to achieve RHC/LG buildout.

With the subway to RHC, the Yonge North BCA docs excluded parallel GO improvements - giving GO roughly the same service quality it has today. These improvements were a priority at the time, so it was flat-out wrong to have excluded them. And though GO RH express rail is officially (as of Spring 2015) delayed, it will by all accounts exist in the future - since it's part of the Big Move and YR's TMP and OPs.
*Note delayed, not dead - and there will still be some near-term corridor improvements.

However, if we pick and choose to omit certain other network projects when looking at this subway, then use low-end BRT capacity as a comparator against 6-car subway (with all other options excluded), then dishonestly preclude other parts of the future network that will be in place - then yes, the argument can loosely be made that a 'subway is necessary'. This is what York Region has been doing, and that shoddy "Missing Link" pamphlet I linked to attempts to do. But for one that's disingenuous. And two, it's faulty in that myopically gives a glimpse of a future that (according to our planning agency, Prov P2G guidelines, and YR's Official Plans) won't exist.

So with GO improvements between RHC and Union in place, the much-touted subway numbers north of Steeles are slashed down to a range fitting of low/mid-level LRT. This we know, as previous modeling has shown (and I presented last night). Another ancillary concern, one that could throw a wrench into subway projections even further, is with the (currently unstudied but Metrolinx-supported) proposal for dist-based fares and New Stations. Theoretically these would slash the subway numbers for Yonge North even further, possibly bringing them down to mid/high range BRT or low range LRT. You can debate the last point all you want, since it's a real 'what if'. The modeling numbers however are a bit more cut and dry.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

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?

If we're talking insane, unicorn-level dreaming, I still can't imagine any circumstance where it would go north of Elgin Mills. Once you're there you hit the Oak Ridges Moraine and a huge gap before Aurora.

Practically speaking, I can't imagine either end of the line would ever need to go north of Major Mac, and then not for decades.

There's no all day 2 direction GO RER planned on the Richmond Hill line so the data is flawed/incomplete.

You don't know what you're talking about. The data is neither flawed nor incomplete - it's not based on modelling. It's based on simply on how many people can fit on X # of trains. [shakes head] In a normal planning process the question is how many cars will end up on the road - these traffic studies are routine, but they did it backwards for this community. It's all spelled out in the reports I cited, not how many people WILL ride any given mode but how many COULD.

I know there are professional Transpo Planners on this board. I know you're not one of them.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Look at the projected peak/daily ridership #s for the stations north of Steeles (ones that incl updated secondary plans). Then look at parts of the wider transportation network that were omitted to obtain these numbers.

dude - I'm saying this with all sincerity - you're making the same mistake as "Cobra". I am NOT talking about modelling or projections or predictions. I am talking about
asking: "How many riders can fit on a subway? How many can fit on a GO train? How many of those are running every day?" and then calculating a potential population. Calthorpe did the preliminary work for Markham. It was vetted by them and York Region and then IBI and Genivar.

Some things about this - or any - transit project are subject to conjecture and predictions and all sorts of subjective things we will agree and disagree about. This is not one of those things. What I'm trying to explain to you, patiently and cogently, is that THIS particular growth centre was planned with the capacity of a subway (and other projects) in mind. It's unique.

If you don't believe me, you can call Markham's planning department. Call IBI Group. I assure you I know for a fact that this is true.

I'll say one more time: I'm NOT talking about ridership projections and modelling for Line 1. I'm talking about how the planning for Langstaff Gateway was done and why, for the umpteeth time, it is a fact that it was designed, explicitly with the capacity of a subway in mind. It's spelled out, black and white, in those reports.

 

[44 North]

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

York Region is updating their OP, which is including possibilities of Line 1 going up to Major Mack by 2041. Vaughan is also making noise about getting a subway up to Vaughan Mills Centre and Wonderland. These ideas are terrible IMO. Not because of subway length or lack of benefits, or an anti-YR me-first attitude. Rather the current going rate of the projects (+$700M/km) and ridiculously high operating/maintenance costs (+$Millions in perpetuity). They're way way too high.

If YR does start pushing for Line 1 extensions north of 7 on both Jane and Yonge, I think they're really doing themselves and their public a disfavour. One, because it interferes with current growth and transit plans. Two, it will almost certainly create political infighting within York Region, not to mention constrained issues with Toronto (see last 60yrs of TO's transit history). Three, it would only get delayed delayed delayed, just like most other transit plans (and this extension which was originally planned to be in operation this year) - forcing riders to use slow buses for the quarter century interim.

Some like to use insults that 'York Region should build their own subway'. But honestly, I think that is the right move. Something smaller, and more fitting with their suburban realm. Might not be a Toronto-sized subway, and it might not be an LRT. But other cities of similar size and layout have made considerable progress using modes that fit somewhere between 6-car underground subway and tram-style LRT.

dude - I'm saying this with all sincerity - you're making the same mistake as "Cobra". I am NOT talking about modelling or projections or predictions. I am talking about
asking: "How many riders can fit on a subway? How many can fit on a GO train? How many of those are running every day?" and then calculating a potential population. Calthorpe did the preliminary work for Markham. It was vetted by them and York Region and then IBI and Genivar.

Some things about this - or any - transit project are subject to conjecture and predictions and all sorts of subjective things we will agree and disagree about. This is not one of those things. What I'm trying to explain to you, patiently and cogently, is that THIS particular growth centre was planned with the capacity of a subway (and other projects) in mind. It's unique.

If you don't believe me, you can call Markham's planning department. Call IBI Group. I assure you I know for a fact that this is true.

I'll say one more time: I'm NOT talking about ridership projections and modelling for Line 1. I'm talking about how the planning for Langstaff Gateway was done and why, for the umpteeth time, it is a fact that it was designed, explicitly with the capacity of a subway in mind. It's spelled out, black and white, in those reports.

I've read them, and seen the numbers. They excluded other network improvements which are on the books and excluded non-subway modes to create an argument that 'development is contingent on a subway and only a subway'. The numbers I've given you answered the questions about capacity / frequency / popularity. It showed GO being much more popular, and subway less popular. These are the numbers that were excluded to create the subway-only argument.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I've read them, and seen the numbers. They excluded other network improvements which are on the books and excluded non-subway modes to create an argument that 'development is contingent on a subway and only a subway'. The numbers I've given you answered the questions about capacity / frequency / popularity. It showed GO being much more popular, and subway less popular. These are the numbers that were excluded to create the subway-only argument.

No, you don't understand.
It's not a "subway only argument." Sigh. It's a density calculation based on subway capacity. If an LRT had been on the books when Calthorpe was hired he would have based his calculations on that, but post-2007, the subway was the plan. He's not from here - he was looking at The Big Move which showed that hub earmarked for subway, 407 Transitway, Viva (and YRT) and all-day, two-way GO, presumably by 2031. That was the assumption he had to work with and he proceeded accordingly.

If you ran the numbers with different modes, you'd get different density/population figures. IBI and Genivar were asked to ascertain whether you could actually fit that many people in that space with that few cars, based on the assumptions of those specific transit modes. They concluded that it was viable.

I know you can see with your own eyes how the phasing triggers are based around what modes are under construction/in operation and based on the mode splits achieved to date. So I don't know how you can say, with a straight face, what you're saying. It's not "Development is contingent on a subway," it's that THIS LEVEL of development (and, more importantly, mode split) is only achievable with a subway. Pull out any one piece and the development and mode split levels change, downwards. It should be self evident at this point. You don't have be an engineer to understand that if you have LRT and buses instead of subway and BRT, you can't have as many people living there.

I've tried to explain it, reasonably and sensibly so we could proceed to "argue" from facts. It clearly cannot be done.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What is the planned density of this area equivalent to in Toronto? Sheppard, north York centre, etc...

 

[Amare]

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?

Here in lies the problem with transit planning in Toronto.

Where we already have beyond sufficient demand for subways, we choose not to build them in these areas. There are several of these type of corridors in the city (King, Queen, etc...). But on the other hand we choose to proceed on projects that will cripple an overloaded line or where there is enough projected demand in 2030, 2040, etc...

Things are just backwards with transit planning in this city, and if we actually had things in order this extension would be further down on the list than it is.

 

[Cobra]

If we're talking insane, unicorn-level dreaming, I still can't imagine any circumstance where it would go north of Elgin Mills. Once you're there you hit the Oak Ridges Moraine and a huge gap before Aurora.

Practically speaking, I can't imagine either end of the line would ever need to go north of Major Mac, and then not for decades.

We're already in a insane, unicorn-level pipe dream.
Vaughan=Metropolitain
We're building a subway to an empty field...because...wait for it....Build it and they will come

You don't know what you're talking about. The data is neither flawed nor incomplete - it's not based on modelling. It's based on simply on how many people can fit on X # of trains. [shakes head] In a normal planning process the question is how many cars will end up on the road - these traffic studies are routine, but they did it backwards for this community. It's all spelled out in the reports I cited, not how many people WILL ride any given mode but how many COULD.

I know there are professional Transpo Planners on this board. I know you're not one of them.

uh uh...

Excluding other options and purposely omitting other scenarios that has a direct correlation with what you're analyzing is a way to fix the whole process to get to the conclusion that you're trying to get...

aka...

"Look, subway makes total sense!!!! The data doesn't lie!!!"
"What LRT??? RER??? No clue what you're talking about....Subway...subway...subway...Build it and they will come!

 

[TOareaFan]

Here in lies the problem with transit planning in Toronto.

Where we already have beyond sufficient demand for subways, we choose not to build them in these areas. There are several of these type of corridors in the city (King, Queen, etc...). But on the other hand we choose to proceed on projects that will cripple an overloaded line or where there is enough projected demand in 2030, 2040, etc...

No one has chosen to proceed with anything. York Region has asked the most senior level of government to grease the wheels on an important project to them by committing funding to it.

If I was guessing, I would think they are a bit worried that a tide of momentum was/is moving against the YNS as priority and they are seeing the GTHA portions of the provincial money being allocated fast.....so they are being proactive on the new pots of federal money. I don't live in York....I have my personal opinion on YNS but I doubt those matter.....but if I lived in York this might be exactly what I would expect of my regional government...that is try and position projects that are a priority to York at/near the front of the line.

But, again, no one has chosen to proceed with this instead of DRL or Scarborough or ST or ReR....York is just trying to advance their cause.

 

[BMO]

It's a complicated issue, no doubt. And it doesn't help matters much that the public is given misleading/contradictory info, and offered new unstudied ideas while others get dropped. Not to mention being completely left in the dark on many issues. But here's my take on GO for the RH corridor:

It does have a heckuva lot of potential, and does reduce ridership of the Yonge North extension. This isn't opinion - it's what Metrolinx's very own numbers told us several years ago. The Big Move promised RH Express Rail (project #47) - a line important to the region's growth, future transportation, UGCs, and P2G. In 2008 Metrolinx provided modeling data of all the Big Move projects (which AFAIK is the most comprehensive and unbiased data on GTA transit projects/ridership we've ever seen, and will ever see). Long and short, it said that RH Express would carry 31.9M annual riders in 2031 with a peak point ridership of 18.1k. These are large #s. *The line also had an excellent business case provided in a separate 2010 report.

For the Yonge North extension it wasn't as rosy, and the ridership #s come nowhere near the ultra-high projections we're seeing now. Metrolinx's modeling projected the extension would have 8.8k peak point and 19.5M annual riders (approx 65k avg wkday). These are low #s, particularly when compared with its astronomical per km cost. It'd carry less than subways like TYSSE (21.4M/yr), Sheppard Stub (20.8M/yr), and the DRL U (117.1M/yr). Not to mention less than LRT projects like Crosstown (62.7M/yr), Don Mills (39.4M/yr), Scarb RT (31.2M/yr), Waterfront W (29.2M/yr), and Finch W (23.2M/yr). On top of this the low peak #s easily make it a candidate for LRT. If using the mode capacity charts provided by Mlinx and TTC (see: Sheppard and SSE debates) it most likely would be excluded from even being considered worthy of a subway. Perhaps semi-underground Crosstown-style LRT, or fully grade-separated SRT-style LRT. But not 6-car underground subway.

So in 2008 this data showed that 2031 GO RH Express Rail wold carry over 10M more than riders/yr than Yonge North (31.9M vs 19.5M), and have more than 2x its peak point ridership (18.1k vs 8.8k). Unsurprisingly however this 2008 modeling data differed significantly from the 2013 Yonge North Benefits Case report. This report didn't follow the same holistic approach (owing largely to the fact that it dishonestly omitted showing the data comparing both a subway and GO Express to RHC - which were both priorities at the time). The report showed a GO to RHC option, and a subway to RHC option...but what was missing was the data showing the two projects together (and the subsequent ridership diversion this would have). Since the 2008 modeling showed us this data but the subway report didn't, it's reasonable to conclude this omission was deliberate. For anyone wanting to travel from RHC/LG to downtown TO (i.e a significant %), how many would take a +45min crowded subway ride vs a 29min GO train (which was an "express" option presented in the RH BCA)? And with recent talks about dist-based subway fares, how many more would move to GO?

Fast forward to Spring 2015, and the RH Express Rail was officially dropped by the Prov (with Stouffville and Barrie getting upgraded to RER). Was this political, or logical, or both...it's hard to tell. Stouffville had somewhat low ridership projections and had previously performed poorly when studied for electrified express rail, yet was upgraded. And GO has known about flooding issues in the Lower Don for decades. Although a problem that requires remedying (with or w/out Express Rail) - it's in no way a dealbreaker. Either way, it was dropped. And changing plans to win votes isn't anything new, so perhaps the same happened here.

So while some on this site will argue that RH improvement are a non-starter with little benefit, the preceding reports paint a different picture. For one it has enormous regional importance w/ high projected ridership. Two: it has a solid business case and was an important part of the Big Move/P2G. Three: Metrolinx has shown us very recently in their YRNS and New Station analysis that RER / subway / LRT can all travel in this flood-prone corridor (with some of these shortlisted ideas to be presented later this year). So if we're to trust the experts (Metrolinx), then the experts in this case say improvements to the RH corridor are possible.

TL;DR - It is a complicated issue, and the DRL and its own complexity only adds to this. But at the end of the day people are right to promote GO improvements between Union and RHC, and to question extending Line 1 north of Steeles. The previous reports/data support their argument. Not to mention the historical evidence of ultra-high development, ridership, and transit mode shares projected for previous Centres (like that proposed at RHC/LG) have almost always been way off. This doesn't mean ppl don't support LRT, RER, etc in York Region. It's just that they don't support the subway.

And regardless of whatever is built or not, the DRL was needed 50yrs ago. So thankfully TO's Planning Dept/TTC are doing a good job in finally planning/prioritizing it. I personally don't think one cent should be spent on Yonge capacity improvements if that money could otherwise go to a DRL.

No offense but this line of thinking (excuse the pun) is exactly why our transportation network is in such a dire state. Assuming that modelling numbers are gospel without understanding the assumptions that went into these models is almost as much of a disservice as alleging that the Region concocted a BCA to justify the subway by artificially omitting GO Ridership numbers created 5 years prior where the assumptions were fairly different considering the political and funding realities of what had been projected in 2008 (remember that $2B/yr figure that the entire BIG MOVE was based on?).

Those numbers you mention for RH GO are based on 2008 assumptions of a built network of transit projects that included the now nonexistant Transit City Network and projected corridor growths that these projects would have created. The report is nearly a decade old which is almost ancient for Land-Use and Transportation modelling considering fundamental realities which have occurred in the urban fabric of the region. 2008 data was likely using the 2006 Transportation Tomorrow Survey and Census data as a base for O-D generation, whereas anything later than 2011 would likely have been using the 2011 TTS and Census data (although I can't find out where they pulled this data from admittedly), so to assume that the baselines are the same for those two reports you mention is false.

It's easy to cherry pick which data you prefer to support your case, but a realistic and fair explanation of what goes into these numbers is only fair if you're going to toss accusations about playing with numbers. It's why we don't build subways on Queen St based on data from 60 years ago, because they're just projections based on assumptions that were available at the time.

 

[Cobra]

No one has chosen to proceed with anything. York Region has asked the most senior level of government to grease the wheels on an important project to them by committing funding to it.

If I was guessing, I would think they are a bit worried that a tide of momentum was/is moving against the YNS as priority and they are seeing the GTHA portions of the provincial money being allocated fast.....so they are being proactive on the new pots of federal money. I don't live in York....I have my personal opinion on YNS but I doubt those matter.....but if I lived in York this might be exactly what I would expect of my regional government...that is try and position projects that are a priority to York at/near the front of the line.

But, again, no one has chosen to proceed with this instead of DRL or Scarborough or ST or ReR....York is just trying to advance their cause.

Unfortunately, we don't know what was said at the meeting with the feds but it's expected that York councillors shamefully minimized how busy the Yonge Line truly is and went as far as implying that the current improvements would be enough to accommodate the added ridership from York.

Don't forget they had the nerve to publicly complain that Toronto are exaggerating on the matter (TTC reports? What reports? ) and that we polarize everything...after getting Vaughan "Metropolis" subway

 

[BMO]

In which case, what's the harm in delaying said hugely successful subway extension to address the current capacity issues within the central core first? Or rather, ensuring the DRL and YNSE are built in conjunction with each other? Either way, a Yonge extension is secondary to the DRL and not simply because of capacity issues. If you can't see the logic behind that, well, go pour some milk over your head, bub.

Delaying something that requires large capital spending is effectively the same as killing it. I'm actually struggling to think of an infrastructure project that was designed and planned more than 10 years ago that has been built as planned. The clock is ticking on this project and if it doesn't get funded soon it'll end up being out of reach IMO

 

[Cobra]

Delaying something that requires large capital spending is effectively the same as killing it. I'm actually struggling to think of an infrastructure project that was designed and planned more than 10 years ago that has been built as planned. The clock is ticking on this project and if it doesn't get funded soon it'll end up being out of reach IMO

Eglinton Crosstown? (granted it's LRT instead of part of the subway network)

 

[BMO]

Eglinton Crosstown? (granted it's LRT instead of part of the subway network)

What I'm saying is if it's delayed you're going to have to spend the money again to re-design the line and re-do the environmental assessments (including Public Consultations) and everything that's already been done to make this shovel ready which will only delay it even more.