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

Cobra said:
Where are the numbers between RHC and Steeles? Sure you're boarding at RHC station is high but the other stations ridership are really bad. That's the Sheppard Line all over again with Don Mills and Sheppard-Yonge carrying the bulk of the ridership.
Click to expand...

Southbound ridership is 10,267 leaving RHC, 14,039 leaving Langstaff, 14,786 leaving Royal Orchard, 18,608 leaving Clark, 20,226 leaving Steeles and 20,964 leaving Cummer.

Cost in 2011 dollars was $3.1 billion, which includes $221 million for 12 new subway trains. Yes, cost goes up faster than inflation (it's probably in the ballpark of $4 billion now), but nothing will get built if we're always trying to get the latest cost estimate before any construction starts.
 
amnesiajune said:
Southbound ridership is 10,267 leaving RHC, 14,039 leaving Langstaff, 14,786 leaving Royal Orchard, 18,608 leaving Clark, 20,226 leaving Steeles and 20,964 leaving Cummer.
Click to expand...

So Richmond Hill 2031 Stations:
  • 10267 at RHC (approx. like current SRT Scarborough Centre station in 2015)
  • 3772 at Langstaff (less than current SRT Lawrence East and Bayview on the Sheppard Line 2015)
  • 747 at Royal Orchard (Worst than Ellesmere and Bessarion 2015)
  • 3822 at Clark (Same as Langstaff comparison)
This is a Sheppard Subway repeat, only worse. Your numbers are for 2031. Sheppard actually outperform it, lol!

amnesiajune said:
Cost in 2011 dollars was $3.1 billion, which includes $221 million for 12 new subway trains. Yes, cost goes up faster than inflation (it's probably in the ballpark of $4 billion now), but nothing will get built if we're always trying to get the latest cost estimate before any construction starts.
Click to expand...

If SSE is close to $5B with one station, no way that this 6 stations tunneled (under Yonge and the 407) subway is cheaper! Not a chance. If you apply the $100M/km for LRT, that's roughly 50km of LRT that could be built in York Region for $5B. Most likely less as not all arteries would warrant LRT, so why isn't that a better option?

In the end, is it cost effective to build a $5B+ subway to service Richmond Hill Centre who's 2031 projection shows it will have the ridership of the 2015 current SRT Scaborough Centre Station?

Applying the same logic we are with the SSE, the stations between Steeles and RHC makes little sense. so we're on-route to repeat Sheppard and SSE
 
Last edited:
Cobra said:
So Richmond Hill 2031 Stations:
  • 10267 at RHC (approx. like current SRT Scarborough Centre station in 2015)
  • 3772 at Langstaff (less than current SRT Lawrence East and Bayview on the Sheppard Line 2015)
  • 747 at Royal Orchard (Worst than Ellesmere and Bessarion 2015)
  • 3822 at Clark (Same as Langstaff comparison)
This is a Sheppard Subway repeat, only worse. Your numbers are for 2031. Sheppard actually outperform it, lol!
Click to expand...

How does Sheppard outperform Yonge North? 10,257 at RHC Station alone is more than the peak ridership of the Sheppard Line (about 4,000)
 
TheTigerMaster said:
How does Sheppard outperform Yonge North? 10,257 at RHC Station alone is more than the peak ridership of the Sheppard Line (about 4,000)
Click to expand...

That's not true. The Sheppard subway's peak hour/direction ridership (AM Eastbound/PM Westbound) is a bit under 10,000. Don Mills alone has almost 7,000.
 
Cobra said:
Where are the numbers between RHC and Steeles? Sure you're boarding at RHC station is high but the other stations ridership are really bad. That's the Sheppard Line all over again with Don Mills and Sheppard-Yonge carrying the bulk of the ridership.

What about the cost in 2017 dollars?

All I'm saying, we need a new update, dare I say a proper EA assessing all mode of transit in a cost-benefit scenario
Click to expand...

Probably a good idea to read the 2009 report along with the 2013, just to get a better perspective. In 2009 the estimate said 8.9-9.6k pphpd in 2021 for the entire extension, with a note that it will have lower loads post-2021. This was using best case growth too, so it's interesting that the numbers more than doubled in the subsequent report when they were supposed to decrease.

For one higher growth/mode share #s were used for the 2013 update. These are ultra-ambitious to the point that they're unrealistic. Not a shot at YR, this is just logical since it hasn't really happened before. Regardless, if we increased the projection out by a decade then we shouldn't be showing parallel GO service of 30mins for 2031. It won't even be running that low in 2021. RTP has Express 5min peak, but even ignoring that outright at least do a side-by-side of 10,15,20min peak service. And I guess also include things like Barrie and Stouffville electrified RER too. They're well outside the catchment, but nonetheless important projects in that they're regional and brand new for the RTP.

And yeah, the costs are going to be very high, but some of that will be due to the new proposal for a yard at 16th. Maybe $5.5bn(2021)? RL may very well see something similar happen if we decide not to use Greenwood.
 
44 North said:
Regardless, if we increased the projection out by a decade then we shouldn't be showing parallel GO service of 30mins for 2031. It won't even be running that low in 2021. RTP has Express 5min peak, but even ignoring that outright at least do a side-by-side of 10,15,20min peak service.
Click to expand...

The 2013 report did that for Option 2. They basically said they expect virtually no difference in ridership between 10 minute frequencies and 30 minute Go Train frequencies. Of course though, this is based on a bunch of assumptions, most notably the fare system. At $3.00 versus $6.00 (which is the report's assumed fare system), people will opt for the 45 minute subway to Union rather than the 40 minute Go Train. At the same price, people will take the Go Train if they don't have to wait longer, especially if they can transfer onto the subway at Union for free.
 
Cobra said:
Where are the numbers between RHC and Steeles? Sure you're boarding at RHC station is high but the other stations ridership are really bad. That's the Sheppard Line all over again with Don Mills and Sheppard-Yonge carrying the bulk of the ridership.

What about the cost in 2017 dollars?

All I'm saying, we need a new update, dare I say a proper EA assessing all mode of transit in a cost-benefit scenario
Click to expand...
Yup.


If you support Richmond Hill, then fine. But you can't be against the Sheppard East and Don Mills and Scarborough subways.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
If you support Richmond Hill, then fine. But you can't be against the Sheppard East and Don Mills and Scarborough subways.
Click to expand...

Actually it's totally easy. You'd be surprised. They're not a package deal. I could support RH and 1, 2, or 3 of those quite easily as they have different circumstances and rationale. I think SSE has become a joke - particularly now that it's eaten up the funding for the EELRT, which is needed to off-set its monolithic nature.

I don't know what the Don Mill subway is....unless you mean the full DRL? No one who understands transit issues in the region wouldn't not-support that, though I take issue with the notion it needs to be fully complete before RH can proceed. By your logic anyone who supports the DRL+ has to support SSE and that's no kind of logic at all.

And the planning for Sheppard is such a mess now I don't know what to think, except that it's a shame they didn't finish the subway as originally planned and even worse that the LRT should be open by now.

The YN extension serves an entirely different function in the network from SSE, even if the length and budget is similar. If nothing else, the primary difference is that it sustains an entire (and existing) corridor, instead of shuttling to a single convergence point.

Not all suburban subways are created equal.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Actually it's totally easy. You'd be surprised. They're not a package deal. I could support RH and 1, 2, or 3 of those quite easily as they have different circumstances and rationale. I think SSE has become a joke - particularly now that it's eaten up the funding for the EELRT, which is needed to off-set its monolithic nature.

I don't know what the Don Mill subway is....unless you mean the full DRL? No one who understands transit issues in the region wouldn't not-support that, though I take issue with the notion it needs to be fully complete before RH can proceed. By your logic anyone who supports the DRL+ has to support SSE and that's no kind of logic at all.

And the planning for Sheppard is such a mess now I don't know what to think, except that it's a shame they didn't finish the subway as originally planned and even worse that the LRT should be open by now.

The YN extension serves an entirely different function in the network from SSE, even if the length and budget is similar. If nothing else, the primary difference is that it sustains an entire (and existing) corridor, instead of shuttling to a single convergence point.

Not all suburban subways are created equal.
Click to expand...
I disagree.


These are all vote buying exercises imo, and I wish people would admit as much. We should not be saying Scarborough can't have a subway if Vaughan/Markham/RH get 2. These are all suburban subways.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
I disagree.


These are all vote buying exercises imo, and I wish people would admit as much. We should not be saying Scarborough can't have a subway if Vaughan/Markham/RH get 2. These are all suburban subways.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know they're all suburban subways. That's why I said, "not all suburban subways are created equal" before.

And what's the last transit project in this region that wasn't a vote buying exercise? That's not really germane. (and to the extent it is, Tory and the Liberals have bent over backwards to make SSE happen and that hasn't happened yet with YN, so it remains hypothetical in comparison to the former's done deal.)

That doesn't mean they all have similar planning, economic or other values.

Fact is, the main problem with the RH extension is that it will potentially overwhelm Line 1's capacity. The main thing SSE has going for it is that it won't.

I could argue that there is far more development potential along the Yonge line, generally, and certainly more at the planned terminal than STC. I can show how it interfaces with planned and existing infrastructure while SSE will require illogical realignment to funnel things into its terminal. I can spend along time explaining the differences and in some areas it might even be SSE has advantages YN does not (hey, it's in TORONTO, for one thing!) but the idea that they're the same or that supporting one logically requires supporting all those projects doesn't stand up to much scrutiny to me. If Toronto had its act together and had built the DRL at some point, it would be as much of a no-brainer as going up to Finch in the 1970s.

EDIT TO ADD:
Cobra said:
I understand all of that, but I'm applying the same criteria to a Richmond Hill subway than we are to a Scarborough or Sheppard subway. I'd just like to see more consistency here because if we judge this subway on the same basis as anywhere else within the city, LRT should have been the best option in a cost-benefit scenario.
Click to expand...

This is outright laughable coming a week after Toronto City Council voted NOT to evaluate SSE vs an LRT. But now the project with a complete EA somehow is demonstrative of LESS analysis than SSE? Gimme a break.

Cobra said:
Exactly and people in those corridors are accused of being "entitled", "dumb" and being "unreasonable". There's no way they would listen to whatever experts are saying in term of ridership and scientific data & studies when they see subways in the middle of nowhere being built to Richmond Hill and Vaughan...underground
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen Yonge Street? Do you know where in Richmond Hill it goes to? Now you think it's in the middle of nowhere? Now you think, what, it might make sense above grade north of Steeles? Nutty stuff, man. Nutty.
 
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Yeah, I know they're all suburban subways. That's why I said, "not all suburban subways are created equal" before.

And what's the last transit project in this region that wasn't a vote buying exercise? That's not really germane. (and to the extent it is, Tory and the Liberals have bent over backwards to make SSE happen and that hasn't happened yet with YN, so it remains hypothetical in comparison to the former's done deal.)

That doesn't mean they all have similar planning, economic or other values.

Fact is, the main problem with the RH extension is that it will potentially overwhelm Line 1's capacity. The main thing SSE has going for it is that it won't.

I could argue that there is far more development potential along the Yonge line, generally, and certainly more at the planned terminal than STC. I can show how it interfaces with planned and existing infrastructure while SSE will require illogical realignment to funnel things into its terminal. I can spend along time explaining the differences and in some areas it might even be SSE has advantages YN does not (hey, it's in TORONTO, for one thing!) but the idea that they're the same or that supporting one logically requires supporting all those projects doesn't stand up to much scrutiny to me. If Toronto had its act together and had built the DRL at some point, it would be as much of a no-brainer as going up to Finch in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
At this point, either we build all of these or none of them. That's my position. Looks like all will be built at some point.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
At this point, either we build all of these or none of them. That's my position. Looks like all will be built at some point.
Click to expand...

I was OK with SSE when it was packaged with ELRT. Without it, I sincerely think it's a poor bargain for Scarborough but, hey, I'm not going to take it so good luck to em.

The problem - as demonstrated in the previous sentence, is that approving one or two stupid projects gobbles up the funds for the good ones. Otherwise, I wouldn't much care one way or another. If Toronto had built the DRL first, I also wouldn't care.

I think many (if not most) of the people here think some sequencing of YN + DRL or DRL +YN makes sense. There's a few, naturally, who think the whole idea of a subway into the forested wilds of Richmond Hill , where Yonge Street is presumably a two-lane, horse-infested dirt road, makes no sense at all but what are you gonna do?

It's not that "suburban subways" never make sense, it's that our current system (both in terms of governance and limited funding) make it awful difficult to sequence things with anything resembling logic.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top