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

[minilude]

Yes. And I also said that the LRT would also present capacity issues, and as such an LRT may not be appropriate either.

To stop the capacity issue you should write to york region and the province and ask them to stop building new houses and attracting new population growth. Revert it to mad max greenbelt then sure Yonge Line won't have any problem but in your life span you will probably not be able to see another subway being built within Toronto because Line 1 is more than enough. Otherwise, even a BRT that is fully within York Region WILL add ridership to Yonge Line.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

So you're admitting it's not appropriate because it'll be too successful? So it's not because it may be built outside of Toronto. Thank you for clearing that up.

I'd like to see your math on justifying ending a subway at steeles that doesn’t add to capacity issues on Yonge, but I'm sure since it's in Toronto it will magically be a non-issue.

BMO, you keep doing this thing where you suggest I support things that I don't support. This is the second time you've done this in less than 24 hours.

Let me be clear: I do not support any transit upgrades on the Yonge North corridor, whether it be BRT, LRT or subway, regardless of where said transit upgrades will terminate, if they will compound Yonge Line capacity issues. Upgrading Yonge Line capacity is a prerequisite for any transit expansion. It's a reason I opposed the Scarborough Subway, it's a reason I opposed SmartTrack, and it's a reason I oppose the YNSE. Understand?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

To stop the capacity issue you should write to york region and the province and ask them to stop building new houses and attracting new population growth. Revert it to mad max greenbelt then sure Yonge Line won't have any problem but in your life span you will probably not be able to see another subway being built within Toronto because Line 1 is more than enough. Otherwise, even a BRT that is fully within York Region WILL add ridership to Yonge Line.

Nothing on the table will stop the capacity issue. The only thing we can do is avoid exacerbating the problem. The YNSE exacerbates the problem.

 

[justindw]

I'm not accusing you or any individual of racism or xenophobia.

You do in the thing I quoted. The bit about suburban cockroaches.

What I am talking about is a pervasive false dichotomy. I think I've answered all your questions in other places on this board but I'll sum up:
-This is not about who gets "the last seat," it's about a system that gets all riders to/from where they are going in an optimal fashion. No one is trying to steal anyone's seat.

The problem is, the last seat is gone. It's gone now, and to the extent it wasn't, it was given to someone who paid for it (by living in the city where the taxes for it were collected). You want to know why it was given to a Torontonian (in the form of the crosstown or SSE). I've explained why. We can't currently, get everyone where they want to go. We could, if we found more money, and built, say, the DRL, but until then, we can't. You can talk about suburban cockroaches all you want, but it is about not having the space.

-Maybe there were concerns about Eglinton and Scarborough but I didn't see John Tory and Josh Colle go on TV to talk about how those projects definitely could not proceed because of those concerns

The didn't. They should have, but they didn't. Maybe, just maybe we can squeeze those people on - opinions are divided; I think we can't, but the TTC says maybe we can. But, after squeezing them on, no one thinks we can take even more from RH. We'll try, but if we're going to spend lots of capital on extensions, it should not be there.

-The question you ask about "why we Toronto should blah blah is the crux of it and there are multiple answers. First, because Toronto and Richmond Hill share a common economic base and interest. People commute from RH to TO and vice versa, every day. People from RH go down to Toronto and work their jobs there and eat lunch there and go to theatre there etc etc.
-More to the point, as you (and most people) define it, "Toronto" is nothing more than where your taxes go. Someone drew a line. It's meaningless to most people in their day to day lives. I've made the point before but I'll make it again that if ,for argument's sake, the municipal border were at Highway 7 instead of Steeles - but a single concession north - this would all be framed differently.
Then you wouldn't have Colle and Tory on TV talking about how we can't serve the riders of North York.

I'm not sure what your point is there.

But there is a line, allowing you to say that these people are coming from "another city." If there were an actual wall, instead of an arbitrary line, the shared economic and other interests of the 905 and 416 wouldn't exist and everyone would be the worse off for it.

No. The question is, given this line exists, what should people allocate the scarce capital on? Should we shove more people onto an overcrowded line, or expand the system? Now, I think it's expand the system, but I can live with "shove more people" being a valid opinion. You, however, are accusing those who wish to relieve congestion first of being seeing suburbanites as cockroaches and levelling some charge of hypocrisy for wishing to relieve the congestion first.

I don't know what you do for a living and I don't know what Hypothetical RH Resident does for a living either but it's entirely possible that S/he lives in RH, commutes into Toronto and contributes way more to the city than you do. Maybe they're CEO of a hospital. Maybe they're a big-time lawyer who takes clients out for expense account lunches in the city's best restaurants. Maybe, for that matter, they get up early and commute to the city so they can pour your coffee at Tim Horton's, since they can't afford to live in the city but need to work there. To deny that person the right to a seat because of taxes...I don't get that.

But, I'm not denying someone a seat. You are denying me one. And you are making a lot of insinuations about me to justify taking that seat.


(And, once again, that entire point will be undermined as soon as there is regional funding, which is imminent.)

I don't think you're Donald Trump (thankfully only one man is) but you ARE creating an us vs. them thing that does not exist. Those foreigners you don't want taking up seats are already doing it - because it's a free country. They drive or bus or even cycle down to Finch and pay their fare and get on the train. That's good for them and good for you, as a tax-paying Torontonian. The question is not how to exclude them, but how to foster a system that allows you to co-exist and move through transit efficiently. ordering them onto GO is not the solution and you can't change the fact that millions of people live outside Toronto and - good news - when they come in the city they don't all want to drive. We've failed to keep pace with growth, but that's not an excuse to start pretending that we're not citizens of a single region with a common interest.

I've only posted on this thread once. You've been accusing people of seeing suburbanites as scurrying cockroaches for page after page. You are fostering an us versus them mentality. You have been doing so for pages.

Stop it, because your mudslinging undermines your argument.

 

[WislaHD]

But there is a line, allowing you to say that these people are coming from "another city." If there were an actual wall, instead of an arbitrary line, the shared economic and other interests of the 905 and 416 wouldn't exist and everyone would be the worse off for it.

But there is a wall, when it comes to where our taxes go and who subsidizes the TTC...

If the province wants to restore subsidizes to the TTC and fund transit-relief projects, and if York Region wants to contribute to operations and capital costs of TTC services that enter York Region, then I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead with the Yonge North extension.

 

[minilude]

But there is a wall, when it comes to where our taxes go and who subsidizes the TTC...

If the province wants to restore subsidizes to the TTC and fund transit-relief projects, and if York Region wants to contribute to operations and capital costs of TTC services that enter York Region, then I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead with the Yonge North extension.

Whoever gets the fare box of Yonge North might not be the loser. There are plenty of things need to be worked out between Toronto and York, and Province (fare integration).

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

But there is a wall, when it comes to where our taxes go and who subsidizes the TTC...

If the province wants to restore subsidizes to the TTC and fund transit-relief projects, and if York Region wants to contribute to operations and capital costs of TTC services that enter York Region, then I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead with the Yonge North extension.

But you know, for a fact, that the funding situation is changing. There is no reason - and has never been a reason - to think that the status quo will be in effect by the time it opens. In the meantime, as I've said, my guess is that if you asked YR they would agree to some kind of operation subsidy but that's a moot point because they've never been asked (not even in the long list of conditions Toronto attached to EA approval).

I won't speak for anyone else but I've always assumed/expected the funding arrangement would recognize a new and fair arrangement and haven't seen anyone here suggest Toronto should have to eat those costs (if there are even costs). I don't know how many people here, by a show of hands, would drop their "opposition" the project if their funding concerns were allayed but with any luck fare integration will be well on its way in the very near future. RER (and to a lesser extent the Spadina and Yonge extensions) are forcing everyone's hand on the matter. As with everything else, Toronto has legit concerns but I think a lot of it just fear of change.

 

[nfitz]

But you know, for a fact, that the funding situation is changing.

I've heard nothing at all about the operational funding situation changing. Do you have a reference about this?

 

[rbt]

I've heard nothing at all about the operational funding situation changing. Do you have a reference about this?

There isn't one. If anything recent evidence is the farebox will be leaned on to cover a higher percentage of overall costs; see recent bus purchase using capital-from-current (farebox). We even had a fare increase, in part, to cover this amount.

The temporary leased yard turns another capital expense into an operations expense funded by the farebox. Smart if it remains temporary.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I've heard nothing at all about the operational funding situation changing. Do you have a reference about this?

Isn't it inevitable that fares get redistributed through fare integration? How can you do it otherwise?

I don't expect the province to just take over but there will have to be a mechanism for inter-agency /cross - border subsidies, seems to me. Steeles would obviously be a key challenge to solve, for any and all modes.

 

[nfitz]

Isn't it inevitable that fares get redistributed through fare integration? How can you do it otherwise?

There's been fare integration for years - the weekly pass. Extending a similar model doesn't change much.

They've been discussing fare integration for a quarter-century already. I wouldn't think there's any certainty. It's not easy to do when the senior government provides so little funding. It's much easier in other jurisdictions such as Montreal and Vancouver where there's a large provincial operating subsidy.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

There's been fare integration for years - the weekly pass. Extending a similar model doesn't change much.

They've been discussing fare integration for a quarter-century already. I wouldn't think there's any certainty. It's not easy to do when the senior government provides so littler funding. It's much easier in other jurisdictions such as Montreal and Vancouver where there's a large provincial operating subsidy.

I hear you. The weekly pass isn't really comparable to what's possible with Presto fully online, nor to what Metrolinx has proposed so far, in terms of fare integration.

My presumption - and it could be wrong, because I'm employing logic, not psychic powers - has always been that there will have to be some sort of provincial subsidy to balance the books, at least for TTC. If Steeles (for example) becomes a place where going from YRT to TTC becomes, let's say a $1.50 charge instead of full fare, TTC will want $ from the province. We'll see how Spadina actually operates if it ever opens, but I suspect the way things are now set-up will cause some operational troubles (or riders being inconvenienced), to the point where that needs to be adjusted too. The province isn't on the brink of going back to pre-Common Sense Revolution funding, but there will have to be a role for them in there.

So, OK, I don't KNOW it but it's always struck me as inevitable, fair and necessary that the province step in. I don't suspect this extension would be a financial drain anyway, but I do think it's fair for TTC to get an equitable arrangement either way.

 

[GenerationW]

Let me be clear: I do not support any transit upgrades on the Yonge North corridor, whether it be BRT, LRT or subway, regardless of where said transit upgrades will terminate, if they will compound Yonge Line capacity issues. Upgrading Yonge Line capacity is a prerequisite for any transit expansion. It's a reason I opposed the Scarborough Subway, it's a reason I opposed SmartTrack, and it's a reason I oppose the YNSE. Understand?

Using that logic, one would also have to be totally against the who knows how many billions (after the east and west extensions are added) we're throwing at Eglinton.

Oh, look, the Eglinton tracker passed Avenue Road!

 

[crs1026]

Using that logic, one would also have to be totally against the who knows how many billions (after the east and west extensions are added) we're throwing at Eglinton

No. That's what is so offensive about the tone of this debate. It is inevitable that transit projects will be prioritised. Eglinton was put to the top of the list years ago, and we have recognised its impacts for good and bad and built that into the plan.

No one is saying that transit should never, ever be improved north of Finch. The question is how soon, and what impacts need to be mitigated. And, how much needs to be built.

This is just a logical, orderly way to do things. I won't claim it is fact-based, because no two people agree on facts. It simply provides a structure to manage uncertainty and risk and limited resources.

If you are the sort of debater who responds to prioritisation by crying that any priority below one is proof of prejudice or anti-somethingism, then it's probably time to put your crayons back in the box and have a time out.

Oh, look, the Eglinton tracker passed Avenue Road!

This thing is actually getting done. Bravo.

- Paul[/QUOTE]

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

No. That's what is so offensive about the tone of this debate. It is inevitable that transit projects will be prioritised. Eglinton was put to the top of the list years ago, and we have recognised its impacts for good and bad and built that into the plan.

No one is saying that transit should never, ever be improved north of Finch. The question is how soon, and what impacts need to be mitigated. And, how much needs to be built.

This is just a logical, orderly way to do things. I won't claim it is fact-based, because no two people agree on facts. It simply provides a structure to manage uncertainty and risk and limited resources.

That's all totally fair. I think the frustration is watching Toronto "plan" its lines in a willy-nilly fashion and then, when something regionally important comes at them from another direction, suddenly they're all about prioritization.

By any fair, objective measure, the DRL should have been ahead of Scarborough and concurrent with, or ahead of Transit City. In 2009 Toronto said DRL was a priority but they didn't deal with it until the very end of the Ford debacle. If they'd said, in 2005 or 2007 that they need to build DRL before talking about other subway extensions, it would be a lot easier to take them seriously when they say, "No really, - this time we REALLY need to build the DRL before building another subway."

That's all made exponentially worse by (again, per the Ford Debacle) their inability to make a plan and stick with it. What if they pass an EA for the DRL in a year or two and then, for whatever series of reasons, it gets de-prioritized again? Then expansion north of Finch has to wait again and not because the city is committed to evidence-based planning because - and this is not just a TORONTO problem - politics keeps messing things up.

In the meantime, York Region planned for intensification along the corridor, because they were told to, and now have to wait on Toronto, who have to build Scarborough (and possibly SmartTrack, whatever that is) first; plans that didn't even exist when Toronto council officially said the DRL had to go before the Yonge extension. They can always re-prioritize when it's THEIR re-prioritizing.

It's the Transit Commission that cried wolf, basically. Yeah, this time there's really a wolf but the moral of the story is that no one cares to believe them anymore. The least they could do is have the class not to lord it over York Region, like they're doing such a bang-up job on the transit file.