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

[salsa]

Densities can be adjusted according to demand, and to fit with transit capacity, which lies at the heart of things."

I think we all "get it" already, and it seems pretty obvious that these rather optimistic development plans were generated without any damn given to downstream capacity problems. So if you say density can be adjusted to capacity, then what's stopping York region from planning human-scaled midrise development along key corridors that would be compatible with a light rail network? Did they even consider that alternative, or are they determined to take another crack at the subway-driven "build it and they will come" suburban centre policy that struggled to materialize in Toronto? Langstaff Gateway in particular is a joke given that it's situated on an awkward parcel of land that's cut off from Richmond Hill Centre by a highway next to another highway, and where most of the planned development would we away from the subway station. Find a better site to develop instead.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think we all "get it" already,

Some of us do. I think it's very clear that "we all" don't. (see: 44North, proof of subway significance)

So if you say density can be adjusted to capacity, then what's stopping York region from planning human-scaled midrise development along key corridors that would be compatible with a light rail network? Did they even consider that alternative, or are they determined to take another crack at the subway-driven "build it and they will come" suburban centre policy that struggled to materialize in Toronto?

And you just said you get it!
When they hired one of the world's premier transit-oriented planners to design the community, it was right after they were told a subway was coming. If he'd been hired 2 years earlier, likely would have assumed it would be BRT with potential upgrade to LRT or a subway, one day. Then we'd have a different "cake."

But when he was hired it was a subway so obviously he proceeded on that basis. It was a logical thing to do and while you can argue there are pros and cons to it, he wasn't concerned with local politics or downstream capacity. That wasn't his job. He simply looked at the site, as is, and tried to devise something engineered entirely around the transit capacity.

You're right that it's awkward and by a highway but it's also adjacent to a huge convergence of transit infrastructure. The people who designed Langstaff Gateway were well aware of all the constraints you listed, and many more. Suffice it to say that some of the world's foremost planning experts - not just Calthorpe but IBI Group, Ferris and Associates, Markham and York Region staff etc., not to mention one of the biggest development corporations in Canada - drew a different conclusion than you did about the viability of the site's development.

Since the future hasn't happened yet, I can't say you're wrong and I'm right. But I can say that some very smart and experienced people saw both the constraints and the potential of that "awkward " parcel - assuming there's a subway - and when people here disagree with their conclusions, it doesn't much shake my faith in them.

As for why centres didn't develop in Toronto (I presume you mean like Scarborough), there are similarities and differences. The timing, the real estate market, the demographics, provincial planning law....there are NO guarantees when it comes planning - by definition - but this isn't some slapdash plan concocted on the back of a napkin, like what's going on in Toronto. It's a specific and concerted attempt to try something bold given a unique convergence of factors. I totally understand skepticism, but people should at least understand what they're criticizing.

 

[44 North]

For the 100th time - they are not using development to inflate ridership projections! It is the opposite!

They are using ridership CAPACITY to determine development capacity. I know this is unusual but surely someone here can UNDERSTAND it, right?

Exactly, capacity. So where in that Langstaff doc does it say a mode below 6-car subway (+30k capacity) but above a bus or tram (10k capacity) had been properly evaluated? It hasn't, because it wasn't - despite the fact that such a mode has the capacity to handle above and beyond the proposed density and ambitious transit mode shares. I've read the docs, and no where does it say this.

Newsflash: the planning regime has already been altered. YNSE was supposed to be in operation now. Then in 2021. Now the evidence is pointing to an inaugural operation sometime in the 2030s. Since the phasing of the subway has been altered (subsequently putting it in place after other aspects of the RTP it was originally supposed to precede), then any perceived 'necessity' for a Line 1 ext north of Steeles has been reduced considerably. It's already been acknowledged by planners and engineers that projected YNSE ridership will decrease significantly once other parts of the RTP are in place. So again, the subway isn't necessary and a non-subway mode (that can meet all density/phasing requirements) was not considered. We have had and still have ample time consider unstudied options, much in the same way we're doing with other projects bundled in the Big Move. Yet with this project we're not.

And you just said you get it! When they hired one of the world's premier transit-oriented planners to design the community, it was right after they were told a subway was coming. If he'd been hired 2 years earlier, likely would have assumed it would be BRT with potential upgrade to LRT or a subway, one day. Then we'd have a different "cake."

But when he was hired it was a subway so obviously he proceeded on that basis. It was a logical thing to do and while you can argue there are pros and cons to it, he wasn't concerned with local politics or downstream capacity. That wasn't his job. He simply looked at the site, as is, and tried to devise something engineered entirely around the transit capacity.

And the world's premier TOD planners proposed a pod system for Langstaff Gateway, in light of the obvious problems of planning a community around a subway station (when the majority of that community is nowhere near the subway station). Since it's doubtful there will be a PRT system, I think that goes to show the site's obvious constraints and that proposed mode shares will more than likely be much lower than projected. Similar to many past Centre developments.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Thou sayest so much and, yea, so little at the same time.

-it's a subway. All you're trying (and failing) to do is prove a negative.There is no actual plan for any alternative and, as you yourself note, all the planning was based on this as a foundation assumption.

-a delay does not alter the plan or phasing one iota, merely pushes it back. None of the phasing is linked to dates, merely to various milestones being achieved. (i.e. a delay is a delay. You know this. Because "delay" and "alteration" are different words.)

-you keep going on about how they didn't evaluate alternatives. Duh. It wasn't some kind of scam. At the time, the province told them there would be a subway, they told Calthorpe there would be a subway and everyone planned accordingly.
I don't know why this chain of events is hard to understand. They could evaluate an LRT, and more power to them them, but it's foolish to think it wouldn't change everything. It says, in black and white above, that any change to the infrastructure requires a comprehensive review. Like I said. 50 times. Or do you think the subway isn't a "key infrastructure component"?
The mere fact no alternatives were evaluated does not prove (despite your assertions) another mode could work. Ironically, it's rather the opposite since I've said and proven time and again, that the subway is the underlying premise. Question whether it should be, if you like. But it most obviously is.

(Superficial example: the location of the mobility hub - a site of some contention between Mkm and RH - was ultimately determined by the EA and the turn radius of a subway. A different mode would undoubtedly reignite this debate and potentially lead to the location moving, another station being added etc.)

-as you already know, the PRT is a long term idea which is not crucial or central to the Langstaff plan. Circulator buses are the actual means through which people can get to the station(s) if they don't live adjacent. Density is concentrated near the Longbridge station and in the central corridor, through which there will be a connecting concourse. You know this too.
But nitpick if you enjoy typing the word "pod." I don't mind. It is a fun word.
Pod.

-beyond the mere provision of infrastructure, phases are contingent on mode shares being achieved. You can question how ambitious they are - and they are ambitious - but if they're not achieved, the next phase won't go (subject to revisions because, as we both know, plans change) because there won't be room for more density. But you know this too.

-to sum up, you're wrong about almost everything and each point you make has already demonstrably been proven so. Sometimes months and years ago. Why you persist is known only to you.

I've spoken with actual planners who worked on it at pretty much every level. I know you're wrong,though you're certainly entitled to believe what you like.

Just discovered: Long lost footage of 44North explaining why a subway isn't baked in to the LG planning and thinking a lot about pods:

 

[44 North]

Very mature.

Okay, if you genuinely believe langstaff and rhc will see above 25k peak ridership (even though I've gone out of my way to show you otherwise), then you might as well kiss this extension goodbye. Doesn't really make much sense to have a line approach its capacity limit in its first 2km. What did these planners you 'spoke with' say about that glaring flaw? Were these the same brilliant minds that said you'll be riding a subway from rhc in 2015?

 

[WislaHD]

Regardless of how many people get on at RHC or Langstaff, the subway with the YNSE is reaching its pre-ATC capacity by the time it rolls into Sheppard Station by 2031.

This is a problem.

 

[Cobra]

TJ is still holding on the 2009 EA as a bible.

Reality is that a EA one will have to be done as the 2009 EA will be obsolete.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

TJ is still holding on the 2009 EA as a bible.
Reality is that a EA one will have to be done as the 2009 EA will be obsolete.

I don't think it's a bible. it's an EA, obviously. Well, a TPAP, really. And enough time has passed that it will definitely at least require a spit polish. but the engineering work going on now is still based on it, as far as I know.

My point was simply that the engineering for the subway influenced the planning RHC and Langstaff in regards to the locations of the stations. Markham and RH were quibbling about where to put the terminal, in particular, and RH basically won, sticking it up near High Tech.

That's the only context in which I cited the TPAP. If there was an LRT instead, or if they were considering how the urban form shifts with various alternate modes, it could have a very different routing and more stations than the 2 currently planned (i.e. likely including a station in the middle of Langstaff). But, as I said, the planning was oriented around the SUBWAY, for now. It was simply one of the key assumptions built into the planning, rightly or wrongly.

As for maturity, 44, who doesn't like a good Simpsons GIF? just trying to lighten things, you know.

And as for the "brilliant minds," I don't think the date is their fault. It was the province that gave them a timeline that got tossed for various reasons. They don't look less brilliant because the subway isn't open yet (and it was supposed to be 2017 IIRC, so we still have a chance!). It ain't the first major infrastructure project to face delays of some kind, methinks.

Anyway, I don't think the point of their capacity argument was that they would cram the entire line full north of Steeles and then develop based on those numbers. the point was....sigh...if you are building a subdivision the municipality will (at least in theory) limit the number of potential units based on the surrounding road capacity. What Calthorpe did was say, "Well, we basically have no road capacity so let's see how things work if we look at the ceiling based instead on transit capacity." You wanna question it, I in no way tell you not to. I will merely reaffirm that his work (well, his firm's work) was vetted by both the municipality (ie Markham and York Region) and IBI Group as technically feasible. It's POSSIBLE they know something you don't about all this, is all I'm saying.

 

[GenerationW]

TJ is still holding on the 2009 EA as a bible.

Reality is that a EA one will have to be done as the 2009 EA will be obsolete.

The province just kicked in $55 million. Pretty much guarantees an obsolete EA won't be an issue.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The province just kicked in $55 million. Pretty much guarantees an obsolete EA won't be an issue.

shhh, with your facts, now!
What's relevant for the naysayers to accept is:
a) That $55M is going to work 100% based on the existing, 2009 EA/TPAP
b) There are actual rules governing whether a new EA is needed. To whit:
It's required if construction not started with 10 years (and we're getting there, no question). but it's not clear there are any changes in terms of "new conditions in the study area, new engineering standards, or new technologies for
mitigation measures." In short, it's not your grandpa's EA so don't assume any significant update will be required.

 

[Palma]

It's important to note that the Yonge corridor between Hwy 7 and Finch is a key development node for the GTA and is the densest, most transit oriented part of York region's master plan. The population forecast for people living within 500m of a subway station between Finch and RHC in 2031 is 160,000 residents and 68,000 jobs. Without this extension York region will be unable to fulfill the Provincial government requirement for municipalities to have 60% of their development in transit oriented developments.

http://www.vivanext.com/files/EnvironmentalAssessments/YongeExtension/Conceptual Design Report/3277670 Conceptual Design Report Appendix A.pdf

again with these numbers. Once we see it then do somethign. Is that not what transit used to be - a line is busy therefore convert to subway. Today from bus, LRt to subway. Is this not the order

 

[Palma]

For the 100th time - they are not using development to inflate ridership projections! It is the opposite!

They are using ridership CAPACITY to determine development capacity. I know this is unusual but surely someone here can UNDERSTAND it, right?

I mean, this is pretty 101 but here's an old Christopher Hume article:
"Because of the size of the grand plan, Langstaff will be developed in phases, each contingent upon the one before. Densities can be adjusted according to demand, and to fit with transit capacity, which lies at the heart of things."

You see? The TRANSIT CAPACITY is the primary determinant of the available density. Ridership is not dependent on density, from a planning perspective, it's the other way around. This never happens in normal developments.

Ergo, if you plan density based on subway capacity and then put in an LRT, you have fundamentally altered the very basis of the entire planning regime. Unusual - not hard to understand, I don't think.

Anyone who grasps this fundamental and relevant truth, gimme a like! Not so fast, 44north!

who says people up in Langsatff even want condos. If you are living that far out I doubt it. But of course, does not matter what communities want, condos get built

 

[kEiThZ]

Would gladly accept this extension before the the DRL if the province was willing to pay for full upgrades to Line 1 including platform screen doors, full ATC and complete SOGR for the line. Maybe even more trains.

Toronto has to learn how to bargain and leverage instead of getting dragged to the altar reluctantly every time.

Now that TYSSE reaches 7. It's inevitable that Yonge will too. The only questions are when and what Toronto gets for it.

 

[44 North]

As for maturity, 44, who doesn't like a good Simpsons GIF? just trying to lighten things, you know.

And as for the "brilliant minds," I don't think the date is their fault. It was the province that gave them a timeline that got tossed for various reasons. They don't look less brilliant because the subway isn't open yet (and it was supposed to be 2017 IIRC, so we still have a chance!). It ain't the first major infrastructure project to face delays of some kind, methinks.

Anyway, I don't think the point of their capacity argument was that they would cram the entire line full north of Steeles and then develop based on those numbers. the point was....sigh...if you are building a subdivision the municipality will (at least in theory) limit the number of potential units based on the surrounding road capacity. What Calthorpe did was say, "Well, we basically have no road capacity so let's see how things work if we look at the ceiling based instead on transit capacity." You wanna question it, I in no way tell you not to. I will merely reaffirm that his work (well, his firm's work) was vetted by both the municipality (ie Markham and York Region) and IBI Group as technically feasible. It's POSSIBLE they know something you don't about all this, is all I'm saying.

I'm not sure if you even understand 'all you're saying'. Seems to me that you've said the capacity of a 6-car TR (+30k pphpd) is the only way to carry the loads projected for YR's development plans. Right? Nothing else works apparently because plans were "reverse engineered" so as to necessitate this +30k capacity. But since all this capacity is required, you're also inadvertently stating that in the not-to-distant future a s/b Line 1 train will have very little capacity left after departing Langstaff station. This isn't true, obviously. But the web of misleading logic unintentionally asserts this.

However if you're now arguing that this isn't true, and that the engineering and technical docs are correct in projecting that development along Yonge north of Steeles will create under 20k peak (a ridership projected to decrease over the decades), then by default you can now agree that a Line 1 extension isn't necessary to meet the capacity requirements. And that with another rapid transit mode that also meets the development's 'reverse engineered' capacity requirements, York Region's job/pop numbers wouldn't have to change one iota. Why? Because the development's capacity requirements are met by the mode's capacity. Understand?

So long as the mode has the capacity, will the vision for the transformation of junkyards and fields at Langstaff change? It could, and afaik the precinct plans have yet to be finalized so they were bound to see changes anyways. But this needn't be some quantum alteration or scorched earth zero sum game. The character and vision of pods zipping along Parisian-like streets can still exist if YR wants it to, and projected job/pop maximums can remain - so long as the mode has the capacity.

At the end of the day though a Line 1 extension to Hwy 7 is a nice-to-have, but all the evidence says it isn't necessary to meet the planned density. Hiring this Calthorpe to try and bump the numbers definitely helped to justify it, no doubt. But even in the best case scenario the numbers aren't that extreme that trains would be near-full before they get to Steeles. Just north of 7 YR considered a mode that - interestingly enough - does meet the capacity requirements as south of 7 (15-25k pphpd). So we know such a thing can work in place of a Line 1 ext to RHC. You want to insult the worthiness of an unstudied mode, by all means. But to continually assert as fact that a 6-car TR and only a 6-car TR has the capacity to meet YR's planned density is a bit of a mistruth.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

who says people up in Langsatff even want condos. If you are living that far out I doubt it. But of course, does not matter what communities want, condos get built

We haven't met but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't work anywhere in the real estate or development industries. Do I win a prize?
Seriously - have you been on Yonge north of Finch lately? Or Markham Cenre? Have you seen the housing start numbers in Vaughan and Markham and Richmond Hill? Are we actually asking this question in 2016, "Do suburbanites want to live in condos?"

The biggest development corp in the country didn't assemble the land in Langstaff because they thought it was the perfect place for more McMansions. indeed, there is no way they could make back their money with that level of development. I heartily acknowledge that some elements of the Langstaff plan are ambitious and require leaps of faith. that people will buy condos there doesn't make me blink once.

(And Langstaff isn't all highrise - much of it is more Parisian-scale, 6-storey kinda stuff. But, yes, not likely to be a lot of freehold ownership.)

But since all this capacity is required, you're also inadvertently stating that in the not-to-distant future a s/b Line 1 train will have very little capacity left after departing Langstaff station. This isn't true, obviously. But the web of misleading logic unintentionally asserts this.

I think that's a simplistic and even misguided analysis but, as always, I welcome you to track down and speak any one of the dozens of professional planners who worked on it.

And that with another rapid transit mode that also meets the development's 'reverse engineered' capacity requirements, York Region's job/pop numbers wouldn't have to change one iota. Why? Because the development's capacity requirements are met by the mode's capacity. Understand?

Nah, you're just giving me a headache at this point. The density and ridership numbers we're talkin gabout are full-buildout numbers anyway, which was NEVER going to be 2031. Maybe 2051, but maybe not even then. Who knows what transit will look like....those "pods" could be a moot point by then if they've figured out driverless cars (which are basically the same thing), really.

But keep pimping the alternate modes. it's actually possible that if this drags on long enough someone will consider one of them. I never said another mode "couldn't work," I said that everything is built on the assumption of a subway; and it is. If someone has a different mode (as you seem to think you do) that's cheaper but still carries the same number of people, sure, they could possibly do that with minimal impact. I can agree with that.

The FORM of the transit is not the point (though, as I pointed out, some of the form of the community was dictated by the engineering requirements and station locations). But if your point is that something else could theoretically perform the same function with the same capacity, sure. Why not? It's not crazy.
I'm just trying to engage with the practical realities whenever possible.

You want to insult the worthiness of an unstudied mode, by all means. But to continually assert as fact that a 6-car TR and only a 6-car TR has the capacity to meet YR's planned density is a bit of a mistruth.

You know, maybe all our spat is just about semantics. It's not that it's the ONLY thing that do it but it is, firstly the MOST LIKELY. this is true politically and practically. You'd have to have something pretty sweet for it to make sense to introduce different tech between Finch and 7 (or further north by then, who knows?). Secondly, I never said it could ONLY do it in some deep philosophical sense, I said that the design of the community is based around a subway and swapping anything else in changes that. I don't see how that's really in dispute. Every plan is built on assumptions.

Now, if you want to argue there is something that can do the exact same job for less money and it makes more sense, that's fine. It may be true. I've never once said I'm averse to studying another mode, I've merely reiterated, well, what I've already reiterated. Do another BCA, bring in LRT, bring in the not-quite--Metroail thingie you had. I'm fine with that.

It doesn't change my point about the planning or the chain of events to date or the extremely great likelihood that it will be a subway no matter how little objective sense that might make either today or by the time they get around to building it.