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

[Palma]

Markham too?! Markham AND York Region. Stunning news. Who doesn't want a subway?

"Yes, they have chosen to open new whitebelt lands in Vaughan. But they've also chosen to open hardly any in Markham, contingent on there being a subway. (And not an LRT and not Metrorail - a subway. Period.) I don't care if you want to give them an LRT instead, but then understand they will change the plans (BECAUSE PLANS CHANGE!) and they will open more whitebelt lands. That's how it works."

"You might think there are 10,000 ways around that logic but you're not on council or staff to propose them (far as I know). Markham was presented with 3 of those 10,000 options and they chose 1. It's the one with the subway."

These 2 quotes from a poster

 

[Palma]

As a frequent user of both the Finch and Sheppard buses, I fully reject your false suggestions that these routes are not heavily used. It doesn't mean that a subway makes any sense, but often times the buses are so packed that some people are unable to get on the bus.

you can say that about many bus routes in Toronto - Dufferin, Jane, Eglinton, etc

But I had no idea there were detached houses and townhouses on Finch (at least from Beacroft to Bayview i think it was

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

"Yes, they have chosen to open new whitebelt lands in Vaughan. But they've also chosen to open hardly any in Markham, contingent on there being a subway. (And not an LRT and not Metrorail - a subway. Period.) I don't care if you want to give them an LRT instead, but then understand they will change the plans (BECAUSE PLANS CHANGE!) and they will open more whitebelt lands. That's how it works."

"You might think there are 10,000 ways around that logic but you're not on council or staff to propose them (far as I know). Markham was presented with 3 of those 10,000 options and they chose 1. It's the one with the subway."

These 2 quotes from a poster

Thanks for quoting me to myself, Einstein!
The second time I was being sarcastic towards some fool who's apparently been commenting on this board without knowing Markham has a huge interest in the subway until now.
Oh, it was you.

The winky guy was supposed to be, like, a clue.

At least one of us is missing a bunch of irony.

 

[11th]

you can say that about many bus routes in Toronto - Dufferin, Jane, Eglinton, etc

But I had no idea there were detached houses and townhouses on Finch (at least from Beacroft to Bayview i think it was

Steeles is also mostly detached houses from Yonge to Bayview, same goes for York Mills and Lawrence; exceptions being Eglinton, and surprisingly, Sheppard.

 

[44 North]

Gimme a break.
You know a 2041 plan for a subway is different from an unfunded line with a complete EA.
You know one is a Metrolinx priority and the other one isn't even a York Region priority, right?
Why don't you admit your line is imaginary and irrelevant and we can all move on?

Well this "imaginary line" is separately acknowledged by both YR and Vaughan as being a potential priority, and is in fact being studied. So clearly it's not 'my' line. Nor are these prospective extensions all that "irrelevant" (particularly when factoring the demand for railed non-bus transit, YNSE's delay, politicking, past precedents, and that local+regional plans change all the time). Check your watch dude, it's not 2008 anymore. Yonge North may not be shovel-ready until sometime next decade, and this "imaginary" and "irrelevant" extension being studied north of RHC (and/or VMC) may eventually become less imaginary.

One likely scenario would be to redo YNSE's EA (which may have to be redone regardless since the clock is ticking) - only this time with an expanded scope/length bringing it further north of Hwy 7. I think it's likely because it presents the opportunity to tie-in construction with the recent yard extension + 16th Ave station mentioned in the 2014 EA Addendum, and YR's nascent, er, "imaginary" 2041 Major Mack Loop. Another likely scenario would be to drop the use of Line 1 altogether and look at different modes or phasing. This is plausible because YR did in fact explore both light rail and ALRT/light metro modes for north of RHC, but didn't south of there (since the subway was promised).

*also no need to childishly attempt to denigrate both our arguments by repeating "MetroRail" ad nauseum. You know I never wrote that, you know light metro/ALRT is a real mode, you support it for Scarboro, and you know it was once considered by YR for north of RHC. ​

Honestly, I don't see why you have trouble accepting these things as realistic outcomes. This isn't the fantasy thread, no one's riding a unicorn (though some like to pretend they're on a high horse); and until you had to be directed to Vaughan Mill's 2ndary plans or YR's updated TMP vision, you'd CAPS LOCK rant at anyone who suggested YR might try for a subway extension north of 7. But alas transit planning is a dynamic and political process, and plans/priorities evolve. Again: not 2008 anymore. As for Mlinx's definition of "priority" and their role in local/regional issues...their existence most definitely doesn't mean a plan can't change (yes, even for projects with an EA completed and council approval). They're also a bit closed-door, somewhat rogue, and often leave the public with more Qs than answers.

LOL! you got me.
So, aside from the fact that it's been approved by council and was reiterated as a priority in the most recent conception of Toronto's plans, it's not a priority.
Got it! LOL!

***
More straw men than a cast of Wizard of Oz reunion.
I never said it's their HIGHEST priority. You said - black and white - it's not Top 5 or Top 10. you're demonstrably wrong.
There's not a person here who doesn't know construction hasn't started yet or that Toronto has other priorities.
I guess your next post will be patiently explaining that there are definitely 3 "O"s in "Toronto" despite my insistence there's an "A" somewhere?

Where on earth did I say "construction is imminent?" All I said was that it's in Toronto's 15-year plan. Which, because it is!

Everyone knows it's YR's #1 top priority and not Toronto's #1 priority. I don't care about the grey line. Didn't you hear - PLANS CHANGE!
And this one changed from maybe-not-a-subway to definitey-a-subway. But by all means, keep posting (presumably while riding on your unicorn) about how this extension is on the same level as reality as the Major Mac loop.
Gosh - are you as frustrated as I am?

Yet we both agree that many of the projects in TO's 15yr plan will change or won't be built - with YNSE possibly being one of them. Also that "priority" is contextually ambiguous depending on who's priority it is, or who's prioritizing the priority. Again, never said YNSE wasn't listed as one of TO's (many) priorities. But the fact that it wasn't acknowledged as one of our higher priorities over the years, wasn't acknowledged in last week's 15yr map, and was hastily scribbled onto a re-updated map a couple days after its big reveal (giving YNSE its first TO headline in ages)...I'd say these things don't exactly bode well for its "priority" status.

I guess it's laudable how York Region is sticking to their guns and whatnot when it comes to their subway. But if in 2031 there's still no subway, no corridor improvements for buses along Yonge, and an entire new crop of emergent priorities to contend with - perhaps it might point to an inherent problem with the subway-or-nothing stance. Naturally you'll continue to argue that "York Region is more transit-oriented than Toronto". But at the end of the day no subway north of Steeles is a distinct possibility, and I'd say that would mostly fall on their shoulders.

Aren't all gambles risky? Isn't that what it means?
Other centres were planned in different eras, under different regimes, in different real estate markets. Those centres were planned without Places to Grow, without Metrolinx, without $1M houses dominating the market in Toronto...One could go on - but it would just be exposing a black and white fallacy.

Except I've said before, multiple times, I don't object to an LRT, I just think it's not the best choice. Go back a few pages because I'm bored repeating it.
But if that's what you really have a problem with, we don't have a problem!! Let's try to reduce the number of things we disagree about; you might be surprised! For example:

I don't think you are anti-transit or anti-YR, believe it or not. Other people, yes.

There is a dearth of transit use in YR (at least relative to Toronto; not surprising since it's a suburb) but that's hardly the case in the Yonge corridor relevant to these discussions. If they propose a subway in Georgina, I'm with you all the way.

I didn't say "YR has no choice but to sprawl." I said that the population is growing and if you don't accommodate them close to transit, you'll accommodate them on greenbelt lands. That seems obvious. There's a direct connection, obviously. It's stretching logic to criticize York Region for doing both things.

If you want me to agree that Vaughan opening whitebelt lands undermines VMC, you have no choice but to agree that NOT opening them encourages more people to live in the growth centre, don't you? Isn't that your argument? Haven't you made that connection, overtly and repeatedly, all on your own?

Yes, they have chosen to open new whitebelt lands in Vaughan. But they've also chosen to open hardly any in Markham, contingent on there being a subway. (And not an LRT and not Metrorail - a subway. Period.) I don't care if you want to give them an LRT instead, but then understand they will change the plans (BECAUSE PLANS CHANGE!) and they will open more whitebelt lands. That's how it works.

You might think there are 10,000 ways around that logic but you're not on council or staff to propose them (far as I know). Markham was presented with 3 of those 10,000 options and they chose 1. It's the one with the subway.

For one I didn't write that to you, seeing that I didn't want a longwinded thing. But re: the simplistic points about sprawl and whatnot, and how this is an all-or-nothing game (with more sprawl being the endgame if YR doesn't get its promised 5km of subway) - much of that is half-truths and fear-mongering.

Your arguing point about a subway being absolutely necessary for RHC/LG to work is kinda flawed logic. Development phasing is contingent on rapid transit being in place, and the only rapid transit option presented is a Line 1 extension... but that doesn't men a subway is necessary. It's only "necessary" insofar that it's the only RT option presented. Switch the option to light rail, and the development and density can still be realized. Yes, even with the projected res/employment and unreal +60% transit mode share. We already know the whole phasing thing is out the window anyway since the subway is long and indefinitely delayed. And that integrated fares and GO improvements are coming (i.e things not considered in the 2011 model, and excluded from the BCA). Not to mention the elusive 407 Transitway, and new plans like Stouffville and Barrie RER.

And funny you're talking about strawmen and "spewing numbers and graphs w.out putting them in the proper context". Last week you compared 2001 job/pop density for TO's centres with 2031 York Region centres. Purposefully using 15yr old data for TO to assess non-existent (and now unfeasible) 15yr future data in York Region? *smh*. But I guess that's a big step above the old go-to of giving apples/apples comparisons between 1950 Yonge/Queen or 1960 Bloor/Yonge to present day VMC or RHC/LG.

And at the end of the day it's more or less inevitable that YR will open up whitebelt and try to sprawl over protected countryside. That's how they've been keeping their head above water. It's tried and true. People need homes, not everyone wants a condo, and there are virtually no penalties for straying from P2G guidelines. 5km of subway on Yonge will barely put a dent in outward growth. And won't put a single dent if it's delayed indefinitely due to the subway-or-nothing situation.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Well this "imaginary line" is separately acknowledged by both YR and Vaughan as being a potential priority, and is in fact being studied. So clearly it's not 'my' line. Nor are these prospective extensions all that "irrelevant" (particularly when factoring the demand for railed non-bus transit, YNSE's delay, politicking, past precedents, and that local+regional plans change all the time). Check your watch dude, it's not 2008 anymore. Yonge North may not be shovel-ready until sometime next decade, and this "imaginary" and "irrelevant" extension being studied north of RHC (and/or VMC) may eventually become less imaginary.

You're spinning hypotheticals up the wazoo.
Right now the Major Mac loop is a proposal in the TMP. The Yonge line is in the OP and has an approved EA.

so while all the qualifications you list are possibilities, right now - in 2016 - the Yonge line to 7 is FAR closer to reality. than a subway looping at Major Mac. Everyone on earth except you (and possibly Vaughan planning staff) accepts this. Writing another 1,000 words about how if if if if if if if if if if.....etc. doesn't change that. Just because you've declared an extended EA north of 7 "likely" does not render it so. It's POSSIBLE, and so are many other things. But likely? Unless you work for YR and have inside dope, I think not.

Move on.

Yet we both agree that many of the projects in TO's 15yr plan will change or won't be built - with YNSE possibly being one of them. Also that "priority" is contextually ambiguous depending on who's priority it is, or who's prioritizing the priority.

As much as you like saying PRIORITY and as much as priorities can and will change, let's again look at the situation in 2016:
Subway to Highway 7=priority
Subway to Major Mac=not a priority

Maybe that will all change before the end of the week and I'll have yolk on my face. But you'll pardon me if I advise you not to call Vegas to place a bet for me on that.

Naturally you'll continue to argue that "York Region is more transit-oriented than Toronto". But at the end of the day no subway north of Steeles is a distinct possibility, and I'd say that would mostly fall on their shoulders.

I should have macro so everytime you do a post I don't have to type "I never said that, or anything like it," but I never did. The closest I can come is saying that the YR munis have done more to plan their TOD centres than Scarborough.

For one I didn't write that to you, seeing that I didn't want a longwinded thing. But re: the simplistic points about sprawl and whatnot, and how this is an all-or-nothing game (with more sprawl being the endgame if YR doesn't get its promised 5km of subway) - much of that is half-truths and fear-mongering.

It's simple, so I'll reiterate:
You've repeatedly cited Vaughan opening more whitebelt as evidence they have no confidence in VMC.
I've repeatedly said that if you don't build the Yonge subway, you have to house more YR residents on those same whitebelt lands.

Why do you believe one and not the other?

Your arguing point about a subway being absolutely necessary for RHC/LG to work is kinda flawed logic. Development phasing is contingent on rapid transit being in place, and the only rapid transit option presented is a Line 1 extension... but that doesn't men a subway is necessary. It's only "necessary" insofar that it's the only RT option presented.

I literally give up because I've repeatedly tried, patiently and politely to explain why you're wrong. It has nothing to do with the EA or the ridership projections but rather with the unique way in which the population projections were reverse-engineered. If you honestly are baffled and want to ask I'll explain it again with no sarcasm or caps.

The phasing does NOT go out the window, contrary to your opinion, because (as I've repeatedly explained) it's not based on time. It's based on:
-each transit service coming online
-achieving certain modal splits
-the construction of other infrastructure (e.g. they need more wastewater capacity)

So, right now 5,000 units are pre-approved in the UGC.
If they announce RER tomorrow and in 5 years the modal split is (making up a number) 60% cars, 40% alt modes, they will NOT open more units for the next phase. I posted the actual benchmarks in a previous post but suffice it to say they are detailed and complex and - everyone together - contingent on the subway. Without it, all those complex, interlocking details have to be modified.

I'm happy - sincerely and not condescendingly - to find the phasing benchmarks chart and post it for your review. But if you persist in repeating something you fail to grasp as fact, I'll just ignore it from here on in.

Because you're wrong.

And funny you're talking about strawmen and "spewing numbers and graphs w.out putting them in the proper context". Last week you compared 2001 job/pop density for TO's centres with 2031 York Region centres. Purposefully using 15yr old data for TO to assess non-existent (and now unfeasible) 15yr future data in York Region?

Where is that macro?
Let's just say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never pulled up 2001 data for anything I can think of. Don't know if you're thinking of someone else or if you're hallucinating.
I just said it in the last post but - obviously NYCC and Scarb did not materialize quite as hoped. But IMHO, NYCC is fairly successful - great density and urban life, just not the hoped-for jobs and decent-but-not-ideal modal splits.

Other than that, SMH, as you say.
(I also have repeatedly pointed out it took 30 years to get that in NYCC, whereas you criticize VMC for failing after 2, but that's for another thread!)

And at the end of the day it's more or less inevitable that YR will open up whitebelt and try to sprawl over protected countryside. That's how they've been keeping their head above water.

Except, as already explained to you, it's finite. there's hardly any left. And they (at least in Markham, and in RH where they have ZERO whitebelt lands to open), are trying NOT to do that.


EDIT: To save us another round, I'm attaching York Region ROPA4, which has much of the phasing info (and the detailed map, but not the detailed chart). the basics start on P.8 but you can just search for "phasing" and read throughout; more on P. 91, for example. Note that this is in the ROPA, so changing it requires an official plan amendment. Several, actually.

From Page 9:
Because of the importance of the success of both the phasing and infrastructure delivery, both Town Council and Regional Council approval will be required to change the minimum non-residential requirements, maximum residential caps or key infrastructure requirements in any of the phases. An amendment to the Secondary Plan for these any of these items would also only be considered with the provision of detailed monitoring data regarding land use mix, and transportation modes and modal splits that supports the integrity of the broader Regional Centre and its planned function as a transit dependent community.

From P. 10
The extension of Yonge Subway is absolutely vital to the long term vision of the Langstaff Gateway and UGC as a whole.

And it's not ONLY the subway. If Viva gets changed from a BRT to an LRT, that would shift the numbers (and so would shifting Viva down to a normal bus service, not that it's likely to happen). Each phase, and each set of modal split targets are based on specific criteria. If you go through it, you'll see how various pieces of infrastructure are tied to the phasing too. I'll still try to find the actual detailed Markham chart, if you like.

This Metrolinx link has the summary graphic I've posted before and also mentions the unique "back-casting" planning approach I've tried to explain multiple times. (I said "reverse engineer' which sounds less cool than "back-casting.")

And, finally, it won't let me paste P.96 of the Langstaff Secondary Plan but it says what I just said above: The Secondary plan does not establishing TIMING for projects and the region needs to consider impacts on phasing if projects - especially the subway - are delayed or altered.

You see - it was planned BACKWARDS, based on assumptions of specific infrastructure being in place. It's unique and pretty cool! It'd sincerely be awesome if you acknowledged all this and we could yell at each other about other things.

 

[Palma]

Thanks for quoting me to myself, Einstein!
The second time I was being sarcastic towards some fool who's apparently been commenting on this board without knowing Markham has a huge interest in the subway until now.
Oh, it was you.

The winky guy was supposed to be, like, a clue.

At least one of us is missing a bunch of irony.

So have Markham build their own subway Fool that YOU are

 

[Palma]

Steeles is also mostly detached houses from Yonge to Bayview, same goes for York Mills and Lawrence; exceptions being Eglinton, and surprisingly, Sheppard.

Ya and how tall are those condos on Sheppard from Wilson heights going east?. Again, I never see people standing AT THOSE BUS STOPS, nor do I ever see a bus. Those people are using a CAR. In regards to Sheppard east, I can't wait for the day the Sheppard subway is converted to LRT once the rest of the road gets the LRT

Lawrence and York Mils are part of TORONTO

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

So have Markham build their own subway Fool that YOU are

Zing!
Dude, leave the thread to people who understand the geography and history of the GTA. That Markham faux pas was embarrassing for all of us. And then you doubled down on it.

 

[44 North]

As much as you like saying PRIORITY and as much as priorities can and will change, let's again look at the situation in 2016:
Subway to Highway 7=priority
Subway to Major Mac=not a priority

Maybe that will all change before the end of the week and I'll have yolk on my face. But you'll pardon me if I advise you not to call Vegas to place a bet for me on that.

Aw, I thought we moved on from discussing the Major Mack Loop? I didn't mention it in reference to TO's 15yr priorities (though probably would've if we hadn't mutually decided to move on). But yeah, what we're talking here is TO's list of transit projects, YNSE's belated inclusion on said list, and why it being itemized amongst nine other priorities in no way guarantees it will start construction within or after 15yrs, or at all (for the many reasons mentioned, most of which we're aware of by now).

It's simple, so I'll reiterate:
You've repeatedly cited Vaughan opening more whitebelt as evidence they have no confidence in VMC.
I've repeatedly said that if you don't build the Yonge subway, you have to house more YR residents on those same whitebelt lands.

Why do you believe one and not the other?

I didn't bring up Vaughan's sprawl in relation to TYSSE or VMC. Not on this page, or the last few pages. The takeaway is that York Region is sprawling, and will continue to expand outward (with or w/out 5km of subway on Yonge). I'm not fully disparaging them on this, it's an unfortunate reality. People want houses and driveways, and rightfully so.

You argue that 5km of subway along Yonge north of Steeles will delay urban boundary expansion and is a proactive measure against sprawl. And I fully agree...but to an extent. Because I also maintain that a Line 1 extension isn't necessary to achieve this, and that there are a myriad of options (better options perhaps?) that could limit sprawl and promote growth using the same dollars spent on this 5km subway. Also that the subway's astronomical pricetag, usage of scarce/nonexistent funds, nominal coverage, and indefinite delay... all may eventually prove to be somewhat detrimental to YR's attempts at smart/TOD planning. But since there are no other options explored (nor any attempts at interim corridor improvements, or a proposal for phased building), this is obviously my speculation.

Where is that macro?
Let's just say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never pulled up 2001 data for anything I can think of. Don't know if you're thinking of someone else or if you're hallucinating.
I just said it in the last post but - obviously NYCC and Scarb did not materialize quite as hoped. But IMHO, NYCC is fairly successful - great density and urban life, just not the hoped-for jobs and decent-but-not-ideal modal splits.

On the previous page in reply to another poster I inserted a chart of 2011 UGC density numbers to show preexisting context for the GTHA Centres and their pop/job densities. You chimed in thereafter saying such spewed-out charts are contextually-deficient. I'd argue otherwise, and pointed to an actual example of someone using contextually-deficient numbers. That being yours, and the use of 2001 TO data to compare against (nonexistent and currently unfeasible) 2031 York Region projections. From here.

EDIT: To save us another round, I'm attaching York Region ROPA4, which has much of the phasing info (and the detailed map, but not the detailed chart). the basics start on P.8 but you can just search for "phasing" and read throughout; more on P. 91, for example. Note that this is in the ROPA, so changing it requires an official plan amendment. Several, actually.

From Page 9:
Because of the importance of the success of both the phasing and infrastructure delivery, both Town Council and Regional Council approval will be required to change the minimum non-residential requirements, maximum residential caps or key infrastructure requirements in any of the phases. An amendment to the Secondary Plan for these any of these items would also only be considered with the provision of detailed monitoring data regarding land use mix, and transportation modes and modal splits that supports the integrity of the broader Regional Centre and its planned function as a transit dependent community.

From P. 10
The extension of Yonge Subway is absolutely vital to the long term vision of the Langstaff Gateway and UGC as a whole.

And it's not ONLY the subway. If Viva gets changed from a BRT to an LRT, that would shift the numbers (and so would shifting Viva down to a normal bus service, not that it's likely to happen). Each phase, and each set of modal split targets are based on specific criteria. If you go through it, you'll see how various pieces of infrastructure are tied to the phasing too. I'll still try to find the actual detailed Markham chart, if you like.

This Metrolinx link has the summary graphic I've posted before and also mentions the unique "back-casting" planning approach I've tried to explain multiple times. (I said "reverse engineer' which sounds less cool than "back-casting.")

And, finally, it won't let me paste P.96 of the Langstaff Secondary Plan but it says what I just said above: The Secondary plan does not establishing TIMING for projects and the region needs to consider impacts on phasing if projects - especially the subway - are delayed or altered.

You see - it was planned BACKWARDS, based on assumptions of specific infrastructure being in place. It's unique and pretty cool! It'd sincerely be awesome if you acknowledged all this and we could yell at each other about other things.

I'm pretty sure I get it. You've posted the charts and reports, and we had this debate a few times. But what's apparent at the moment is that even with the subway the 'interlocking details' may have to be modified regardless (since the subway is the only option presented, and this exclusive option is delayed indefinitely - which in turn is delaying development phasing and inadvertently bringing phasing closer in line with other aspects of the RTP). But the crux is obviously Yonge, no question there. When there's only one option presented for rapid transit along the corridor, development is contingent on this "vital" single option being in place, and that option can't be built...then there's obviously a snafu. Which there is.

I still stand by my point that the subway isn't actually necessary or vital to achieve the jobs/pop/mode share #s envisioned. Even in the best case scenario (one which excluded GO improvements + fare integration like those listed in the Metrolinx page you linked to) Langstaff station would be one of our least-used stations. And with GO improvements + fare integration in place - all evidence, modeling, and the 2011 BCA show the subway actually losing ridership as the RTP progresses. And outside of this suspended animation / all-or-nothing situation that is the Yonge corridor between Finch and RHC, much of the RTP will progress regardless.

Not saying re-phasing, restructuring, modifications, back-casting, amendments, etc wouldn't be required with the dropping of the subway. Rather that a Line 1 extension isn't necessary to acheive what's envisioned. Present a different and unexplored option, one that can meet all the criteria and expectations...then amend away. It's entirely possible that such an option can be brought to the table, planned around, and u/c in less time than it takes to put a single shovel in the ground for YNSE. Maybe that's a bit presumptuous, but as of right now we don't have a scheduled start date for YNSE, its construction will take a decade, and we've already seen elsewhere that napkin doodles can become tangible transit priorities in a matter of months.

 

[WislaHD]

This morning I stood at an overcrowded Eglinton station and watched (without exaggeration) 5 subway cars pass by, filled like sardines, before I was able to get on and become a sardine myself. The whole stretch between Davisville and Rosedale, not a single person was able to get on. Bloor was predictably, a horror-show.

I really don't think that York Region people understand the gravity of the capacity issues we are presently facing. How could they? They don't board at Eglinton, or Bloor at rush hour peak.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

On the previous page in reply to another poster I inserted a chart of 2011 UGC density numbers to show preexisting context for the GTHA Centres and their pop/job densities. You chimed in thereafter saying such spewed-out charts are contextually-deficient. I'd argue otherwise, and pointed to an actual example of someone using contextually-deficient numbers. That being yours, and the use of 2001 TO data to compare against (nonexistent and currently unfeasible) 2031 York Region projections. From here.

OMG -talk about out of context. That's what you were talking about?
Someone asked, quite fairly, for a basis of comparison - to get a sense of what the densities in the UGC were comparable to. I cited the Neptis report, to give a rough sense. There are also numbers in one of those YR reports I just cited too; better ones probably.

(it's relevant, for example, that nowhere outside TO had a 400 people/jobs centre prior to P2G and that this UGC is aiming for 2x that density.)

I wasn't using the numbers to substantiate projections - just so the TheTigerMaster and other posters could visualize, "Oh, so it's like NYCC or Yonge-Eg" or whatever. They're aiming for "downtown-style" densities in the UGC, and that's what his question was about.
He's even quoted there, so you can see that. Siiiiigh.

I'm pretty sure I get it. You've posted the charts and reports, and we had this debate a few times. But what's apparent at the moment is that even with the subway the 'interlocking details' may have to be modified regardless (since the subway is the only option presented, and this exclusive option is delayed indefinitely - which in turn is delaying development phasing and inadvertently bringing phasing closer in line with other aspects of the RTP). But the crux is obviously Yonge, no question there. When there's only one option presented for rapid transit along the corridor, development is contingent on this "vital" single option being in place, and that option can't be built...then there's obviously a snafu. Which there is.

Like I said - you can make it an LRT or a BRT and do studies if you like. Fine, by me. But surely you can see that if they looked at other options, it would require adjusting the plans, because of the unique way in which they were done. They're far less likely to approve 50-storey towers if it's an LRT, don't you think?

(One example: the stations locations are based on subway turn radii. Hard to know what an LRT route would mean in terms of adjusting that, and therefore where density is targeted.)

I still stand by my point that the subway isn't actually necessary or vital to achieve the jobs/pop/mode share #s envisioned. Even in the best case scenario (one which excluded GO improvements + fare integration like those listed in the Metrolinx page you linked to) Langstaff station would be one of our least-used stations. And with GO improvements + fare integration in place - all evidence, modeling, and the 2011 BCA show the subway actually losing ridership as the RTP progresses.

Well, it sounds like you more or less get my point about the unique planning system in Langstaff - I literally don't know anywhere else that kind of "Back-casting" has been done. So here we'll just agree to disagree. I think you're wrong about being able to achieve those targets wtihout a subway and I know Peter Calthorpe thinks you're wrong. But it's academic for the time being. I guess we'd both be happy if they did a "what if it's an LRT...?" study since we both think we know what it will show

And I agree the delays are at least messing things up, but more for the landowners than anyone else. Metrus won't budge on RHC until the subway is a sure thing and while a precinct plan for Phase 1 of LG has been wending its way through the system, they're also less likely to pounce as long as things are hugely uncertain. I'm kind of curious to see who blinks first. People who don't believe in the "build it and they will come" approach to transit planning might not like
it if they start highrise development in LG before the subway is in the works...

In the meantime, after all these delays, no one has tabled an LRT (or another non-subway mode) as an alternative. Not Toronto, not YR and not Metrolinx. you can read what you want into that but I suspect it means that there's to much momentum, political and otherwise, to derail the subway plan. Pun intended.

This morning I stood at an overcrowded Eglinton station and watched (without exaggeration) 5 subway cars pass by, filled like sardines, before I was able to get on and become a sardine myself. The whole stretch between Davisville and Rosedale, not a single person was able to get on. Bloor was predictably, a horror-show.

I really don't think that York Region people understand the gravity of the capacity issues we are presently facing. How could they? They don't board at Eglinton, or Bloor at rush hour peak.

Well, they don't BOARD but they're on the train. I've taken the subway from Finch at rush hour and seen the chaos you describe. I just don't know what you want me to do. you think I should, like, find another route so you can get on downstream?

I think TORONTO residents don't understand that this is the situation - the result of a generation of transit non-expansion and population explosion - and not-extending the subway doesn't solve it. It's a sucky situation, no mistake but you can't change it. way way too late for that.

(Ironically, I took the subway yesterday, from Finch. I had to get off at Lawrence and shift to the Spadina line during that shutdown. As I cruised past Eglinton, and the perennial backup where the Allen ends I thought:
"Wow - this road is ALWAYS at capacity. So weird no one ever tried to stop Dufferin Street from going north or asking YR to halt development up north or complained about all the 905 drivers!"
The Yonge-Steeles intersection is also over capacity, just like Yonge-Bloor station. It's largely because of all those buses, but traffic keeps slogging through it anyway.
It's the exact same problem, but we look at roads and transit differently, methinks...)

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And just to reiterate I think lrt is worse but not a non starter, I was thinking about it, and those turn radii.

an advantage of lrt occurred to me. You could take it from Longbridge right into the centre of Langstaff and then to RHC, possibly. That eliminates the main drawback of the current plan (distance from LG centre to RHC) .

Don't know if it makes sense to have it at or below grade and quite possibly the CN corridor makes it impossible. It's kind of an interesting mental exercise, but I still think it means more midrise and less high rise. Maybe that's even better, in some sense. But it's still different from the subway-centric plan.

(and lower densities affects the viability of district energy and other things, but not necessarily seriously)

Either way, you open up a can of worms.

 

[44 North]

OMG -talk about out of context. That's what you were talking about?
Someone asked, quite fairly, for a basis of comparison - to get a sense of what the densities in the UGC were comparable to. I cited the Neptis report, to give a rough sense. There are also numbers in one of those YR reports I just cited too; better ones probably.

(it's relevant, for example, that nowhere outside TO had a 400 people/jobs centre prior to P2G and that this UGC is aiming for 2x that density.)

I wasn't using the numbers to substantiate projections - just so the TheTigerMaster and other posters could visualize, "Oh, so it's like NYCC or Yonge-Eg" or whatever. They're aiming for "downtown-style" densities in the UGC, and that's what his question was about.
He's even quoted there, so you can see that. Siiiiigh.

No, I know. But you could've done more due diligence in providing up-to-date numbers in this comparison. The numbers in that Neptis report are from 2001. We've had two censuses since then, and finding the density numbers for 2011 isn't all that hard to do. Well, it can be. But they exist, and I posted the 2011 UGC density numbers a few times over the last year (and seem to recall giving you the link one of those times).

Obviously the 2001 numbers from that Neptis report you quoted are somewhat misleading, since the UGC boundaries weren't properly defined at the time, and that we've seen explosive growth between 2001-2011 at centres like Yonge/Eg, NYCC, and even Scarb to an extent.

Like I said - you can make it an LRT or a BRT and do studies if you like. Fine, by me. But surely you can see that if they looked at other options, it would require adjusting the plans, because of the unique way in which they were done. They're far less likely to approve 50-storey towers if it's an LRT, don't you think?

(One example: the stations locations are based on subway turn radii. Hard to know what an LRT route would mean in terms of adjusting that, and therefore where density is targeted.)



Well, it sounds like you more or less get my point about the unique planning system in Langstaff - I literally don't know anywhere else that kind of "Back-casting" has been done. So here we'll just agree to disagree. I think you're wrong about being able to achieve those targets wtihout a subway and I know Peter Calthorpe thinks you're wrong. But it's academic for the time being. I guess we'd both be happy if they did a "what if it's an LRT...?" study since we both think we know what it will show

And I agree the delays are at least messing things up, but more for the landowners than anyone else. Metrus won't budge on RHC until the subway is a sure thing and while a precinct plan for Phase 1 of LG has been wending its way through the system, they're also less likely to pounce as long as things are hugely uncertain. I'm kind of curious to see who blinks first. People who don't believe in the "build it and they will come" approach to transit planning might not like
it if they start highrise development in LG before the subway is in the works...

In the meantime, after all these delays, no one has tabled an LRT (or another non-subway mode) as an alternative. Not Toronto, not YR and not Metrolinx. you can read what you want into that but I suspect it means that there's to much momentum, political and otherwise, to derail the subway plan. Pun intended.

Well on the whole I'm not blaming anyone in particular with regards to how a non-subway mode was never chosen. Much of the issue of transit planning and transit modes for the last several decades in TO has been polluted/politicized by just about everyone: City, Planning, TTC, Metrolinx, QP, and to some extent the general public's lack of knowledge about these things. This is somewhat evident from the post of yours I'm quoting, and the last ten years of debates and plans in TO. Namely that people say "LRT" as if it's one single thing, with one finite capacity, and something that must travel in the middle of the street for much of its length.

But what I'm trying to expose to all who are willing to listen is that light rail can be many things, in many forms. Yes, one is typical Transit City-style "LRT" (i.e like a streetcar, but longer, higher capacity, and supposedly a bit faster). But there are other forms of 'light rail' with operations/speeds/capacity virtually identical to a subway. You can call it LRT, but other names are Light Metro, Medium-Capacity System, ALRT, or just plain "subway"... These systems are flexible, can be designed for upgrades when capacity warrants, and can be easily expanded (relative to 6-car deep bore heavy rail). And for all intents and purposes it can/should be considered a subway.

And this isn't just for the Yonge corridor that I think it's worth a look. I believe there are several corridors worthy of this, and many more in the future...just so long as it's included in the debate. Vancouver is a good example, as is London, UK. Many cities would love for 6-car underground subways everywhere. But the cost! It's too much, and clearly limits how much we can expand our subway system.

Obviously I'll sound a bit biased, but I think there's only one project that's genuinely worthy of being a 6-car deep bore subway - and that's the DRL. But that doesn't mean I don't want subways expanded elsewhere or beyond the 416. It's just that I think we should transition to a smaller, more affordable, and more flexible subway-like system which can provide more coverage.

 

[Palma]

Says the self-styled "transit expert" who drives through a neighbourhood once and decides that people there will have no use for increased transit options.

FYI: Steeles Avenue is also part of Toronto--you should get out of your car more often if you're going to make big pronouncements about transit needs in this part of the city...

Well guess perhaps south side. Why is there a sign as soon as you go south from Steeles (Welcome to Toronto, Population.....)? Trust me I am a transit user, that's why I am not familiar with areas north of Sheppard since I rarely go north of the 401 except for the past 3 mths as I am in a temp position in the area