You give this way too much weight. First, because as you're the first to tell anyone, plans change all the time. Secondly, because putting in their TMP that they want a subway up to wherever has no actual bearing on reality. It's not like they pitched a subway to Major Mac to Trudeau, did they? It's a 25-year plan, nothing more. I'm sure the one from 25 years ago doesn't look much like what's there now. I can't even imagine how off-base the circa-1990 YR TMP must be.
In the meantime, back in reality, they're actually building the BRT north of Highway 7. That will provide a perfect barometer, since they won't even dream of asking for $ for rail to replace ituntil those buses are at capacity. At least with Highway 7 we can see the constant stream of buses today. That BRT will take a lot longer to reach capacity so, although you keep returning to it, the present-day council and staff definitely understand the difference between north and south of 7. The fact that they are ALSO considering how far urbanization might proceed in the decades to come is to their credit, not detriment. If Toronto had the same attitude, they would have had the DRL in their long-term plans at least post-amalgamation. Dare to dream.
The update to their 2041 TMP has
some bearing on reality. It's a med/long-term plan, and it supports what myself and many others have predicted over the 8yrs this thread has been going on. That is: York Region will sooner or later want more subways - particularly when considering that we've already taken the high-risk unprecedented venture of bringing a deep bore heavy rail subway to fields and an industrial warehouse district (VMC). An area with no NIMBYs for 2km, along the 200th busiest surface corridor, and which would make Scarb Centre look like Manhattan in comparison. If we made that unprecedented decision, then it can be argued that extending Yonge north beyond RHC is doable.
*
That's not the point I'm making though, and honestly I think I'm being fair in all of this (by looking at past, present, and future issues). And supporting TOD, reigning sprawl, and increasing transit usage/length.
And I really don't doubt that BRT north of 7 will reach capacity this millennium. But as we both agree, transit-building isn't just about capacity/ridership. It's about numerous other things like development and attractiveness of service. The "Land Value Premium Chart" we both discussed on the previous page makes my case, and IMO truly does work in York Region's favour. Bus/BRT provide the lowest premium, tram-style LRT provides mid-range premium, and grade-separated LRT and Subway provide the highest. Developers like the highest premium, which BRT doesn't do a good job of. And personally I hate using buses and would oftentimes rather drive.
My point: rather than piecemeal subway to RHC and an interchange to BRT northwards (the two extremes + transfer). I think we should build higher-end LRT (either Crosstown-style
semi-grade-separated Light Rail, or Vancouver-style
fully grade-separated Light Rail) along the entire Yonge corridor. And I'm making this conclusion by looking at the
whole situation of past, present, and future plans.
I'm not being dishonest, or us vs them, or trying to short-change York Region. This would build one longer line, in one go, with similar capacity/speed as a subway - but over a much longer range. No piecemeal, no waiting around, no infighting. York Reigon looked at this option for north of 7, but hasn't for south of 7. I'd say re-look at the issue over the entire corridor, and take into consideration past/present/future issues. I wouldn't be surprised if this could be seen as the best option. I'm being honest and unbiased here. More TOD development, more subway-like rapid transit, built faster, more input from York Region...it's a win-win.
I get the sense that a bunch of people on here seem to think that stopping the extension will magically get rid of demand and alleviate the Yonge line. The fact is that it isn't going to make the demand disappear and it's not going to shift ridership away from the line. It's always going to be an issue.
Fight for a DRL all you want but the fact still remains that this demand is and will continue to be on this stretch of Yonge before and after a DRL, so to act like this extension is pie-in-the-sky thinking is completely ludicrous.
Maybe instead of an Us or Them attitude it may be an opportunity to get a DRL and a Yonge extension funded instead of claiming that the 905 is ruining your city.
Hmm. I hope you're not talking about me here. Yes there are a few posters with little knowledge of the issue and don't further debate. But IMO if anyone is being Us vs Them it's posts like yours. No offense, but that's my takeaway. And not to toot my own horn, but I'm being honest when I talk about this from looking at past/present/future issues holistically.
- I've read and analyzed the past plans, their future modeling, and BCAs
- I'm aware that both Yonge BCAs omitted important GO RH data which reduced subway biz case/ridership
- I'm more than aware that much of the Big Move is changing - RER being a major new component
- The subway has been delayed (should've been open this year), and many are rightfully PO'd
- McWynnetyLinx isn't exactly forthright or non-political, and have changed their own plans (some logical, some political)
- McWynnetyLinx is behind on TISAP, fare integration, and road pricing - all things in place in the RTP's modeling assumption
- Studies purposefully ignored light rail modes that could theoretically provide more subway-like transit over a greater area
- Modes such as these provide sufficient capacity, land value premiums similar to subways, and meet growth expectations
- Recently York Region hinted that they want a subway north of 7 sooner instead of later
- We have decades of data that shows growth tends to follow corridors and oftentimes doesn't fill planned "Centres" as fast as promised
Factoring all this info, I think there are better subway-like alternatives that can be built over a longer area, using the same $4.6bn than an a$tronomically-priced piecemeal subway extension to Hwy 7. Then a few years later yet
another long drawn-out wait for a further piecemeal subway extension beyond 7 or up Jane.
I don't get how an extension could over-crowd the subway and yet not justify a subway because it won't have demand for one. Please expand...
I really don't get this argument, everyone is screaming about it overcrowding the Yonge Line and that's why it can't be a subway and then everyone is screaming it should be an LRT because it doesn't justify a subway based on ridership. So which is it? Is it going to attract too many riders or too few?
Ah, this argument. Well personally I think a subway paralleling Yonge on its east side should've been built decades ago. I don't give two sh!ts what capacity improvement numbers say. Many experts agree with me on this, and Byford admitted it on his first day here. This isn't 'us vs them', this is apparent and logical.
Modeling which included Richmond Hill Express Rail, Don Mills LRT, and the DRL U all showed very high ridership. And all roughly share similar catchments (with each providing different levels of service). Surprisingly however these don't reduce Yonge's capacity issues. All are important. But in the case of the DRL U and DMLRT, we could theoretically combine the two into a DRL Long - which seems to be where we're headed.
This would reduce capacity issues, and was needed long, long ago.
