With the Steeles station in place, the time frame to build the line north becomes shorter when it happens. TTC Can build high speed crossovers at Steeles to speed up service some what.
Since the yard is to be at 16th Ave, a 16th station should be built, but is this the right place to stop the line, let alone RHC??
Agreed on a terminus at Steeles (just not yet). An unbiased look at YNSE's numbers that takes into consideration the realities of overestimation, past "Centre" development proposals, historical evidence, and that a UGC like Langstaff/RHC has many of the hallmarks of a futile Centre in-the-making (particularly the LG component) - it's not hard to concur Steeles to be the optimal terminus point for a deep bore heavy rail extension for the mid term. IMO we kinda got burned with TYSSE going north of Steeles, and I think fact-based planning should be used more than hoped-for planning. Oddly enough I actually think it's in Vaughan/YR's best interest that TYSSE's inauguration is two years late. Had news cameras been rolling as trains pulled into those stations last year, with panorama sweeps of the pedestrian-less surrounding surface and stats showing the dearth of transit usage in YR, I think journalists and the public alike would be more inclined to question the govt's decision just as much as many continue to question the decision behind a project like Sheppard.
As for the point about YNSE's new yard near 16th Ave, I'd be interested to know how many are even aware of this change in plans. Last TTC estimate I saw pegged the project at $4.6bn (2016), yet recent YR/Mlinx quotes undercut this estimate considerably. Re: the
possibility of a station at 16th...frankly I wouldn't doubt it will be added. Nor would I doubt another addendum that has the project terminating even further north. At least on paper.
Ugh. People are STILL debating this as if they're going to kill it and build a 50km DRL or implement RER next year or stop it at Steeles or otherwise soliciting opinions about what they should do now.
It's going to Highway 7. Period. Move on.
The province would never fund it only to Steeles because it makes no sense given the planning regime and Regional Transit Plan they've approved, and the Official Plans they've approved that conform to those. Move on.
Toronto has already endorsed the project subject to the (now being planned DRL). Move on.
Toronto has updated its secondary plan from Finch to Steeles to account for the increased density that comes with a subway. Move on.
We've all got personal Master Plans and Fantasy Maps. The province and city and region have actual maps. It's on those. Move on.
As far as operating costs, it's likely to be the most successful new transit project in the Big Move and there's reason to hope/expect some sort of regional funding to have something more fair by the time it opens, at least 10 years from now. So, move on.
Soon we're going to be reduced to debating whether ships can actually navigate the Northwestern Passage or whether they'll fall off the earth if we can't figure out the difference between history and the present.
You've been writing more or less the same rhetoric for many years. You could be writing it for the next decade. Then it could be another decade before you're ever riding this train. I'm sure people were told to "move on" in 2007 for doubting YNSE will be built as promised, and in operation when promised. And many were proven right that YNSE was a botched promise ("botched" since it won't be in operation for quite some time, and was undeliverable from day one).
You've also put considerable effort into insulting people and their "fantasy maps", trying to ensure that the Big Move 1.0 is carved in stone and will be built as envisioned. But interestingly many of these amateur cartographer's personal proposals have been considered in some way over the years, while at the same time much of the Big Move has in fact changed. What I've yet to see though is any UTer propose running a subway north of Hwy 7 - considering the costs of such a concept. Yet YR presents this as its own fantasy map, and a recent YNSE addendum to bring non-revenue track almost 2km north of 7 seemingly stacked the deck to ensure that this fantasy comes closer to reality.
You argue those who think Steeles is an optimal/realistic terminus must move on from such fantastical beliefs. But again it could be 20yrs before anyone is riding a subway on Yonge north of Steeles. We have a century of unbuilt transit plans collecting dust, and there's no logical reason that a $0.7bn/km deep bore subway extension to fields at Langstaff or a Montana's at Hwy 7 can't sit on a shelf alongside them.
As for Scarborough subway, now I'm just wondering if you're being ironic. "Since it's within Toronto," isn't remotely relevant to the discussion. What is - and what every one of your prerequisites ignores - is how the network actually functions. I already explained the rail yard and Sheppard and if you don't understand why DRL has to go ahead of Yonge, and arguably ahead of Scarborough, I just don't know. As to the fact the Yonge line would go a whole 4 km or so into York Region and generate TRIPLE - again, that's TRIPLE - the ridership now expected for Scarborough, well that answers that too.
YNSE will have triple the ridership of SSE? Are we sure that's a "fact" and not, say, a fantasy? When was the last ridership study of YNSE? Honest Q. IMO the facts are that YNSE has been delayed considerably resulting in a severe lack of development at Langstaff/RHC (which has thrown a wrench in the 2031 ridership estimates); that previous ridership studies omitted comparative analyses of a parallel GO RH service; that previous studies said TTC/GO fare integration was to oddly not exist in 2031; that 2008 modeling put YNSE ridership below that of Sheppard; that Barrie RER, Stouffville RER, and SmartTrack all didn't exist at the time of the last ridership study; that present YRT/Viva ridership was supposed to be a lot higher than today; that the (still mostly unplanned/unfunded) 407 Transitway would be in place and with questionably high ridership...etc.
Sorry, but I definitely cast doubt that the projections you're quoting as "fact" are accurate and worthy of a 1:1 comparison with SSE. Unless there's been recent reports I'm missing, I think the 'facts' about YNSE right now are somewhat flawed and dated. It'd be better to use recent modeling data that includes things like TTC/GO fare integration, distance-based subway fares, the 2014 RER grand plan, and more down-to-earth development projections/ranges that are more in line with the present reality. We've been greeted with numerous studies and virtually every computation to show shifts in SSE's ridership, but seemingly very little when it comes to YNSE.
)
