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

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think that's awfully naive. I presume you live in Woodbridge? I live in Thornhill. I assure you, the politics are quite different and there are cabals and fiefdoms and backroom goings-on in Vaughan just as divisive and interesting and wrong as anything in Toronto. We've got all those ward issues AND regional politicians doing who knows what.

And that's without getting into York Region and the undeniable north/south split that exists, and all those problems on a double scale.

Yes, Toronto is the biggest city in the country but on a per capita basis we've got as much trouble as they do. Yeah, they have more of it - they have more wards and thus more dummies on council and they have more "priority neighbourhoods" and, hey, more of everything. But Vaughan's not a small town and York Region less so. I don't doubt that politics are easier to "manage" up here (throw less media scrutiny into the mix, and an unelected regional chairman too!).

So, I understand why YR has been able to stick by a single transit plan and TO has changed its mind 50 times. I just don't think it's an excuse. Torontonians elected Rob Ford in a free election (and Vaughan elected Linda Jackson and Michael DiBiase!) and they have only themselves to blame for the mess they're in.

Now, with this extension and RER and all the other Metrolinx moving forward the spotlight is shining on the weak links in the regional network. If they were even halfway on top of the transit file, David Miller - who many revere for his transit work - would have been aware of the importance of the DRL to the larger network. But they didn't. Like the guy in Jurassic Park said, "I don't blame people for their mistakes but I do ask that they pay for them." More or less.

On the transit file? I doubt it. Again transit planning and the regional transportation plan have all been done from a pretty well unified voice (perhaps this is aided by York Region), no one is saying "if Newmarket is getting a VIVA rapidway than Schomberg deserves one as well". If anything there is a lack of interest in the transit file York Region's municipal representatives.

Furthermore I think the nature of the politicks between York and Toronto is quite different, at least on the transit file. Where Toronto has a me me me attitude towards transit (with subways subways subways layered on top) York tends to be indifferent to any transit plans and almost happy to push plans towards things like, VMC, RHC, Markham Centre, etc, etc which allow for intensification at these locations (which in turn provides the rationale for the transit expansion) and allows for their wards to remain lower density.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

As for your intensification and transit planning, it was said many times that LRT and GO RER wasn't taken under consideration. A report proving that subway trumps all would put this debate to rest, yet that report doesn't exist and it should get done. By the time the Relief Line will be built, Metrolinx will most likely do another one as the old report will be too old.

That may be the sad truth. Yay, GTA Transit Planning!

Anyway, LRT and GO RER are totally different animals, and - a mistake 44North made too - you're confusing ridership projections with land-use planning. At the very minimum, we're talking about 2 different things. Yes, the Case Benefits Analysis for Yonge North did not look at LRT.

What I'm saying is that when they did the planning for how many people/jobs could fit into RHC/Langstaff, they were based on the assumptions of all-day, 2-way GO aaaaaaand the subway both being operational. (And the Transitway, FWIW). Ergo, the RER is very much built into York Region (and Vaughan and Markham and Richmond Hill')s planning assumptions). You can find umpteen reports that show it - just google the master/secondary plans for RHC or Langstaff Gateway.

the ridership/capacity projections are a whole other argument so hopefully that clarifies.
If you wanna get started, the LG Secondary Plan is here...
http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt 6 cls 8 am.pdf

I've mentioned it more times than I count - even if you and 44North don't believe me but here's a couple of quick excerpts:

• GO Train service is place - increases in service level are anticipated based on input from Metrolinx
  
• Buildout of Langstaff Gateway will be over the long term (2051)
• Proposed phasing plan protects for the longer term buildout of the plan at densities appropriate for a unique centre serviced by a subway, provincial transitway, Viva, GO and Highway 407
• If any of these key infrastructure components are removed, the plan will need to be comprehensively reviewed and the necessary adjustments made by amendment

I've said the last thing to 44North like a dozen times and he doesn't believe me, but so, there's a report "backing my claim."

EDIT TO ADD - from the Langstaff Secondary Plan:

• The centre..Integrates a balance and diversity of residential, retail, office and public uses, at transit supportive densities, at the convergence of two regional rapid transitways and a provincial rapid transitway and high speed commuter rail line; and
• The mobility hub is a place of connectivity where different modes of transportation — from walking to high-speed rail — converge and where there is an intensive
  concentration of employment, living, shopping and/or recreation

Good, might have been a good idea to let the Feds know that when they went visiting Ottawa...Unsurprisingly, they left that part out.

dude - I'm sure you know this but the PROVINCE is funding the entire RER network. It's for them to ask for RER money. And I think the feds should give it to them and, in general, should give $ to Metrolinx to distribute rather than any single municipality. (And you don't know they didn't voice support for RER or if JT even cared.)

And Smarttrack was supposed to happen within 7 years as originally envisioned...Oh well...Also, they are quoting the Big Move. Things can change as the Relief Line wasn't there originally.

Yes, regional transit planning here is a joke and their pretty map might not end up being worth much. It's still on TORONTO's planning documents.

Ok. Doesn't have to be one or the other...Why isn't LRT remotely an option for you for them to link important parts of YR together and get them to Vaughan Subway Station and the GO RER Stations faster?

go back a few pages. I've said repeatedly that LRT is an option and that if the province announced it tomorrow I'd roll my eyes but not throw a fit. I've outlined why I think it's the INFERIOR option and I won't list them all again (though I will point you to the bold point above, again) but it's not a non-starter.

I don't think Metrolinx owns all the tracks on Richmond Hill line and Stouffville. They need to either own them or build new tracks I assume. This can be done faster than a subway that won't get build before the Relief line, which is at least a decade from operating.

If you keep moving the goalposts, sure. In theory, they could have started building around 2009 and been mostly done right now. Would TTC have exploded or imploded? I doubt it but whatever at this point.

Fine.
Eglinton Crosstown will get build as planned from the Airport to UTSC (Malvern LRT segment aka Crosstown East)
Scarborough LRT is replace by the subway extension
Finch will get build
Don Mills will become the relief line.

Yeah, I guess I was unclear. I meant ACTUAL Transit City, from 2007?
The correct answer was, "Well, there have been a few changes and we're just a weeeeeee bit behind schedule but..." before you got to the "good news."

Around 1918-1919

So, one century

Your thoughts on Vaughan Metropolitain subway and ideas of extension to Vaughan Mills and Wonderland...Please

And I'm confused...The subway is a pressing matter since you claim the ridership and demand justifies it while LRT is far from being urgent...Weird contradiction...

this is all on previous pages but:
-LRT is not far from being urgent
-I think VMC will happen but it will take time and people who think it's already failed don't understand planning
-I think an extension north of Highway 7 is stupid, I'll even add the capital S (Stupid). Wonderland's only open like 10 weeks a year and we both know the other 20 reasons it's dumb. Possibly, maybe it could make sense in 20 years, but I doubt it. I'm mostly annoyed because them even floating the idea gives SOME people ammo to show they don't know what they're doing and just asking for subways everywhere.
-I would endorse going north of 7 on Yonge EVENTUALLY but never north of Major Mac and not in the near future. As opposed to Hwy 7, where major e/w transit converges, to which I think both subways should go.

Overall I'm a pretty reasonable fellow!

Yet those are within Paris. Suburbs are serviced by the RER. The intermodal stations was to show you that the RER can accommodate suburban riders who doesn't necessarily need to go downtown. They can get off anywhere on the same avenues as the Yonge Line is currently doing with access to rapid transit line to get them more precisely where they need to go.

True. But our geography is different. I don't think another GO line has so little development potential, which is frustrating. but it does veer into the valley and away from everything else.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

On the transit file? I doubt it. Again transit planning and the regional transportation plan have all been done from a pretty well unified voice (perhaps this is aided by York Region), no one is saying "if Newmarket is getting a VIVA rapidway than Schomberg deserves one as well". If anything there is a lack of interest in the transit file York Region's municipal representatives.

So, you don't think someone said, "If Vaughan/Rh and Markham are getting Rapidways, Newmarket should get one?"
I think that's PRECISELY what happened.

Furthermore I think the nature of the politicks between York and Toronto is quite different, at least on the transit file. Where Toronto has a me me me attitude towards transit (with subways subways subways layered on top) York tends to be indifferent to any transit plans and almost happy to push plans towards things like, VMC, RHC, Markham Centre, etc, etc which allow for intensification at these locations (which in turn provides the rationale for the transit expansion) and allows for their wards to remain lower density.

I don't want to psychologically evaluate a bunch of municipalities.
the fact remains that York Region, and Markham in particular, was ahead of the curve when it came to suburban, transit-oriented intensification. Markham was giving New Urbanism a shot when Brampton and Mississauga were tripling-down on sprawl in the 90s. Then the province - building on THEIR work - passed a regional plan requiring them to grow by certain numbers in certain places. We all know the rationale of Places to Grow and The Big Move so I won't bore everyone but YR has, for all its flaws, been more committed to those ideals than anyone else (Waterloo and Oakville are the only ones in the same league). I don't understand how that keeps getting flipped into a bad thing.

 

[Cobra]

Regardless of all the exchanges going on...

This is reality.

1-No YNSE until Relief Line is built
(It's been implied that YNSE and Relief line could open at the same time but you'd need the Relief Line to reach Sheppard for that as Yonge needs a maximum relief)

2-Relief Line is not operating until the next decade and the long version could be farther than that...assuming you don't get a PC government scrapping and deferring transit plans elected in the meantime...

3-That leaves YNSE possible opening time past 2030. (best cast scenario)

All I was pointing out is...Are you guys sure you want status quo for the next decade (s) or is there some merits to get rapid transit built before then with the possibility of a subway being opened down the road?

LRT+GO RER in the short/mid term DOESN'T mean no subways...ever.
But sabotaging the Yonge line just to get Richmond Hill a subway faster is irresponsible and not going to happen.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Regardless of all the exchanges going on...

This is reality.

1-No YNSE until Relief Line is built
(It's been implied that YNSE and Relief line could open at the same time but you'd need the Relief Line to reach Sheppard for that as Yonge needs a maximum relief)

2-Relief Line is not operating until the next decade and the long version could be farther than that...assuming you don't get a PC government scrapping and deferring transit plans elected in the meantime...

3-That leaves YNSE possible opening time past 2030. (best cast scenario)

All I was pointing out is...Are you guys sure you want status quo for the next decade (s) or is there some merits to get rapid transit built before then with the possibility of a subway being opened down the road?

It's a sad situation we've gotten ourselves into.
My short answer is:
-If it's actually clear that no subway can come before 2035 (or whatever), yes, I 'd endorse doing an LRT, in theory
BUT
-it's not a binary choice because YR wouldn't be able to build it on their own so we're STILL talking about a joint project with joint funding AND
-it's clear that if YR built an LRT and let's pretend it was ready as soon as 2025, it would be be creating the PRECISE SAME capacity issues on Yonge
-Because the full build-out of RHC/Langstaff is decades away, it is reasonable to expect that opening day ridership on an LRT or subway would be pretty darned close to the exact same. So, circa 2025ish, you have X# of riders getting to Finch on RT, no matter what mode you build.
-Growth is inevitable so short of actually building a Trumpian Wall at Steeles, I don't know how you get around this conundrum.

(Actually one idea - and you can't just MAKE it happen, but you can HOPE and try , is that you develop reverse commuting and more mixed-use, employment centres outside the city core. Mixed results so far, no doubt, but more jobs in Markham and Vaughan=fewer people going south on the subway at rush hour.)

After that it becomes a question of do you you compromise for the short-term or maximize for the long-term. We've seen what happen with the former (1995 - Harris vs. Sheppard and Eglinton) and it doesn't work. The status quo is clearly unsustainable, and probably has been for a while and it's a moving target since there will be more people in York Region next year, and more people in Toronto too.


I don't have an answer to resolving all this, I just know what mode I think makes the most sense.

 

[44 North]

Let's just say everybody here (except Cobra!) is partly right. Ford didn't delay Eglinton by YEARS and TECHNICALLY you can blame the province for going along with all his craziness.

Or, y'know, you could actually admit to being wrong - as others politely pointed out. And admit that you're usage of CAPS LOCK/ doesn't make your mistruths or lies become true.

And honestly I think you're really doing your argument a serious disservice when you write these misleading or fallacious posts, and IMO really are perpetuating the Us vs Them nonsense.

You do realize that Transportation and Land Use go hand-in-hand right? Even if you forget about that, these municipalities have been forced to achieve a certain density level based on what's outlined the Regional Growth Plan. And unfortunately for your argument it's impossible to achieve those targets unless you have public transit investment in these mobility hubs because I can guarantee if Vaughan proposed mid-rise towers on every avenue it would likely never happen because private developers aren't going to want to build mid-rise developments that are served by a bus every 40 minutes and aren't close to a highway, or jobs, or services.

You're blaming York Region for a market force they can't change on account of they HAVE to do intensification in these areas to achieve their targets.

No one's arguing against public transit, or against intensification. The irony is that they're arguing for transit and for intensification. What many question is what has been omitted from the debate, and what has been omitted from the modelling data in order to uphold the 'Subway or nothing' argument.

Anyway, LRT and GO RER are totally different animals, and - a mistake 44North made too - you're confusing ridership projects with land-use planning. At the very minimum, we're talking about 2 different things. Yes, the Case Benefits Analysis for Yonge North did not look at LRT.

What I'm saying is that when they did the planning for how many people/jobs could fit into RHC/Langstaff, they were based on the assumptions of all-day, 2-way GO aaaaaaand the subway both being operational. (And the Transitway, FWIW). Ergo, the RER is very much built into York Region (and Vaughan and Markham and Richmond Hill's planning assumptions). You can find umpteen reports that show it - just google the master/secondary plans for RHC or Langstaff Gateway.

the ridership/capacity projections are a whole other argument so hopefully that clarifies.
If you wanna get started, the LG Secondary Plan is here...
http://archives.york.ca/councilcommitteearchives/pdf/rpt 6 cls 8 am.pdf

I've mentioned it more times than I count - even if you and 44North don't believe me but here's a couple of quick excerpts:

• GO Train service is place - increases in service level are anticipated based on input from Metrolinx
  
• Buildout of Langstaff Gateway will be over the long term (2051)
• Proposed phasing plan protects for the longer term buildout of the plan at densities appropriate for a unique centre serviced by a subway, provincial transitway, Viva, GO and Highway 407
• If any of these key infrastructure components are removed, the plan will need to be comprehensively reviewed and the necessary adjustments made by amendment

I've said the last thing to 44North like a dozen times and he doesn't believe me, but so, there's a report "backing my claim."

Okay, for one we've both agreed that the Big Move and the projects outlaid in the RTP are moving targets, what with Metrolinx changing priorities or bringing entirely new projects to the table (ones never included in the RTP like Stouffivlle RER). So the phasing thing is out the window.

And that document doesn't prove that a subway is necessary.

Step by step, the docs for the Yonge North Extension went like this. 2008 RTP modeling showing Express Rail and Subway results in low 2031 subway ridership, and high GO ridership. The assumptions made in the RTP were that we'd have fare integration, ultra-high UGC development/density, high transit mode shares, road pricing, etc etc.

Though contrary to RTP data and assumptions, the 2009 Yonge North BCA presented a future with a subway to RHC and no GO improvements by 2021. Regardless, the results showed the subway having between 8,900-9,600pphd (i.e a number that doesn't warrant a subway). Logically by 2031 the subway would increase in ridership, right? Wrong. The BCA even acknowledged that with more growth over the decade we'd see a decrease: 2021 statistics are used because RTP results show that peak demand on route is within 15 years, with lower loads later with the implementation of Richmond Hill Express Rail.

The updated 2013 BCA took into account certain changes and updated 2011 modeling info. The modeling assumption was that in the mid-term the existing GO/TTC fare structure would be in place (i.e no fare integration), that the corridor would remain unimproved with the same speeds as today (slow), and that it'd be one-way AM peak 15min service. However the updated modeling concluded that conversion of the GO Richmond Hill line to the 5 minute, higher-speed service envisioned in Metrolinx RTP plan for Express Rail services would attract many of these passengers away from the subway to the GO Rail line. And that analysis shows a significant number of riders could be attracted from the Yonge Subway extension to a GO Richmond Hill service with sufficient improvements to its speed, frequency and fares ...In other words things that are supposed to exist, and are part of the Big Move/RTP and its assumptions. Fare integration and service frequency is a huge part of the SSE and DRL studies, yet we're seemingly not seeing it done here.

And just like the 2009 BCA and its omission of certain modelling data and assumptions for a 2021 subway to RHC projection, the 2013 BCA omitted showing certain modeling and assumptions for a 2031 subway to RHC. But what's worse is that it excluded the updated assumptions provided by both TTC and Metrolinx in its subway option, showing no improvements, no fare integration, slow speed, and even lower service (30min peak). All things that aren't supposed to be in place.

Regardless, it's already been noted that all modes between subway and BRT weren't considered for the corridor - even though these could meet the demand numbers. And since the subway has been significantly delayed; and development at RHC has been significantly delayed; and that RH GO improvements were never once taken off table - I really don't see the evidence that this is a subway or nothing situation. Sure it's desirable, and developers obviously want it. But it's not necessary to meet the development or ridership at RHC/LG or along the Yonge corridor, so long as GO improvements are in place and something above BRT is built. And it's been suggested by TTC that if the subway is delayed (which it is), York Region should pursue Yonge corridor improvements as an interim solution.

 

[Palma]

[QUOTE="


How many years ago - how many decades, CENTURIES - was it that Manhattan was connected by subway to Brooklyn? How many subway lines go there now? And from Brooklyn to Queen's? I'm pretty sure it's more than 1. Strange comparison. Long Island is closer, and they don't have subways (not quite) but they've had "RER" for decades.
.
.[/QUOTE]
Brooklyn is a New York city borough just like the 6 former boroughs before amalgamation

 

[Palma]

I love the photo of the LRT with glass partition on both sides separating it from cars and trees on one side behind partitions. looks great. Too bad Finch will not look like this

 

[CodeMonkey]

What's wrong with GO RER? Why not advocate for that instead? Additional stops can be added on major Toronto arteries including Sheppard Subway, Eglinton Crosstown and Bloor-Danforth line all the way to Union...just like the Paris RER is doing quite well. RER is a proven system which the province is replicating, to my surprise, the right way.

The problem with adding stops on Sheppard Subway, Eglinton Crosstown and Bloor-Danforth would just add to the problem of traffic at transfer stations.

I'd like to think that a $4B LRT lines + GO RER Stations brings WAY MORE value to York than a few subway stops.
Why isn't York region remotely interested at exploring this possibility? Wouldn't that option stimulate even more growth if there was more rapid transit covering more territory and reaching more riders? The subway to Richmond Hill is decades away from happening if it does happen, so why not having this discussion which could get more rapid transit faster, to more people at a reasonable price per km?

Building an LRT doesn't stimulate growth. If that was true, the whole GTHA would have been covered with LRT lines by now. Same with subways/HRT, you can't build them without the growth already there.

GO RER stations will bring improvements, but nothing like Paris RER. The Paris RER is more of what GO-ALRT envisioned than what GO RER will be.

This is not a turf war. Toronto had the same thought process which will get us the Transit City model who brings more rapid transit to more people instead of a few Km of subways. Hell, even NYC is doing it to link Brooklyn to Queens, yet people are adamant that this much money should be used on a subway for such a short stretch.

Transit City is in no way "rapid transit" as a regular bus route is rapid transit, and the cost savings isn't in the technology of LRT's themselves, but the fact you don't need to build complex stations that subways/HRT's require. If the LRT or even the RER had to be built underground or with stations like subways, the cost savings would evaporate.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Brooklyn is a New York city borough just like the 6 former boroughs before amalgamation

Duh doi. That's why I also mentioned Long Island. But until mid-century, transit in NYC was operated by a series of individual operators. Now they - and their commuter rail services - are all under the same Transit Authority. People here FREAK OUT when that idea is proposed here, just like they FREAK OUT when we even begin to talk about the kinds of funding tools they use to build and operate transit there.

Or, y'know, you could actually admit to being wrong - as others politely pointed out. And admit that you're usage of CAPS LOCK/ doesn't make your mistruths or lies become true.

And honestly I think you're really doing your argument a serious disservice when you write these misleading or fallacious posts, and IMO really are perpetuating the Us vs Them nonsense.

Like you with my posts, I just skim these lengthy blah blah blahs.

If you can't understand that the planning regime for York Region is built upon a subway and that, per that document, changing the subway requires comprehensive changes to the official/secondary plans, I can't help you anymore. It's NECESSARY (a caps lock for you!) because it was the built-in assumption. If LRT had been the built-in assumption, then that would be "necessary." Obviously it can change because the future has not yet happened, but, per the official York Region planning document, that will require "the plan ...to be comprehensively reviewed and the necessary adjustments made by amendment." Because the plan is built around a subway.

I don't know why you don't think it's necessary but if you want to call Peter Calthorpe or some other planner who worked on the project and then ask them, that's fine by me. He's in California so calling York Region or Markham or Condor and Metrus (the main landowners), that's probably easier. Doesn't matter to me because I know every one of them will say the UGC was designed around the presumption of a subway (and, less importantly, RER), which has nothing to do with the BCA and ridership projections, for the 20th time. Those are separate problems.

Let's try this: If I am asked to make a Dark Chocolate Cake, dark chocolate is a NECESSARY ingredient. If I get home and discover I only have milk chocolate, well shoot. I can still make the cake but I'll have to ADJUST the recipe, and I'll end up with a different-but-similar cake because I don't have the ingredients I thought I'd have when I planned to get baking. doesn't mean my Milk Chocolate Cake won't be delicious; but it won't be a Dark Chocolate cake. Doesn't mean the dark chocolate wasn't a necessary ingredient for that cake I never made. See?

EDIT: To add I find this presumption that I'm perpetuating Us vs. Them hugely insulting. I'm not going to dignify it with a response except to say that I believe strongly in regionalism and always have - whether that means informal cooperation or something more formal like a transit authority or regional governance. I've seen with my own eyes how little of that is a reality today. What I want to see is a healthy, multi-modal region, centred around Toronto, and that requires a lot of people - on all sides - to get their heads out of their butts. Beyond that, think what you wanna.

 

[44 North]

The presumption of a subway actually has quite a bit to do with ridership and the BCA's conclusions, since that's how the argument can be made that a subway is "necessary". Certain modes can't move as many people, some can. Similarly certain modes attract some riders, while alternate modes attract some riders. The subway only becomes necessary in two scenarios: the residential-employment numbers/density and transit mode shares are achieved, and we maintain base case service and fare integration on the RH line indefinitely. The first is possible (tho historically very hard to do), the second contradicts the RTP and ongoing plans for fare integration.

And I'd love to talk to Calthorpe about the PRT pod system he proposed for Langstaff Gateway. I was under the impression such things were fanciful and unrealistic, but I guess if he believes that's what's necessary for Langstaff Gateway's success then I wish the proposal all the best.

 

[Palma]

Duh doi. That's why I also mentioned Long Island. But until mid-century, transit in NYC was operated by a series of individual operators. Now they - and their commuter rail services - are all under the same Transit Authority. People here FREAK OUT when that idea is proposed here, just like they FREAK OUT when we even begin to talk about the kinds of funding tools they use to build and operate transit there.



Like you with my posts, I just skim these lengthy blah blah blahs.

If you can't understand that the planning regime for York Region is built upon a subway and that, per that document, changing the subway requires comprehensive changes to the official/secondary plans, I can't help you anymore. .

I believe when Toronto first built the Yonge line they paid for it solely. So ley Vaughan go ahead and build their first subway solely. I would think they would want to start along Steeles or Hyw 7 (but they really need to change that name)

 

[Cobra]

The problem with adding stops on Sheppard Subway, Eglinton Crosstown and Bloor-Danforth would just add to the problem of traffic at transfer stations..

As it was pointed out earlier, not everyone needs to go to Union. Those new interchange stations would service those who need get to their alternate destinations via other East-West transit line, hence relieving to some degree the Yonge line.

Building an LRT doesn't stimulate growth. If that was true, the whole GTHA would have been covered with LRT lines by now. Same with subways/HRT, you can't build them without the growth already there. .

Hamilton, Mississauga, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa....all fools right? We should lecture Europeans while were at it...

GO RER stations will bring improvements, but nothing like Paris RER. The Paris RER is more of what GO-ALRT envisioned than what GO RER will be..

If the province delivers what's in their reports, GO RER will be identical to Paris RER.

Transit City is in no way "rapid transit" as a regular bus route is rapid transit, and the cost savings isn't in the technology of LRT's themselves, but the fact you don't need to build complex stations that subways/HRT's require. If the LRT or even the RER had to be built underground or with stations like subways, the cost savings would evaporate.

Fortunately, Metrolinx are revising the LRT lines. Using the term "Transit City" is misleading. Under Miller and Giambrone, it looked like they wanted to make a "Streetcar +" network with Eglinton being the exception.

Under Metrolinx, it seems they are keen on the word "Rapid" hence consulting to get the right speed vs stop pacing ratio.

 

[Cobra]

I believe when Toronto first built the Yonge line they paid for it solely. So ley Vaughan go ahead and build their first subway solely. I would think they would want to start along Steeles or Hyw 7 (but they really need to change that name)

To further your point:

@York: If you're confident that Richmond Hill is the next Canary Wharf, why don't you support this model?

If NYC and Jersey can do it, I'm sure this can be done here

Surface

Elevated

Underground

In all seriousness: I don't advocate for that. It's just odd that York is willing to badmouth Toronto but will happily pressure other level of governments to make this happens WAY TOO SOON, which would not only sabotage the Yonge line but also drop the extra operating costs on the lapse of the TTC.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Or maybe I'm wrong and the next Canary Wharf is coming...then funding the above shouldn't be too hard?

PS: Mix of sarcasm and a mix of other feelings in the above statement

 

[BMO]

So if the DRL got built beforehand would everyone be OK with the Yonge Extension being built? Or is it really just that you don't think this corridor deserves a subway? I'm really still unsure as to whether this is a capacity argument or an issue with the utilization of a future extension?