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

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Nothing Chow could have done to accelerate the DRL to the same pace that Smarttrack will be done. Even if she was able to advance it to be open a year early, it will still be complete way after GO RER/ST.

Sigh - this can all go in a SmartTrack or DRL thread. It's immaterial to the point which was simply that Tory said SmartTrack would open sufficient capacity as to negate the need for the DRL, at least in the short term That was his CENTRAL campaign plank.

If that's true, shut up and allow YNSE to proceed.
If it's not, admit that his transit plan wasted time, Toronto council has failed in its duties and promises and keeps obstructing and pushing back the DRL - despite constantly asserting it's a priority, in which case, don't take the Mayor of Markham to task for pushing YNSE and saying it's time to get on with it already.

The capacity issue is real - and created largely by Toronto's inability or refusal to confront it. As you rightly point out, the population goes up and up; and faster in the 905 than the 416 so Toronto's "mistakes" have regional effects. I guess that was my point.

 

[syn]

Sigh - this can all go in a SmartTrack or DRL thread. It's immaterial to the point which was simply that Tory said SmartTrack would open sufficient capacity as to negate the need for the DRL, at least in the short term That was his CENTRAL campaign plank.

If that's true, shut up and allow YNSE to proceed.
If it's not, admit that his transit plan wasted time, Toronto council has failed in its duties and promises and keeps obstructing and pushing back the DRL - despite constantly asserting it's a priority, in which case, don't take the Mayor of Markham to task for pushing YNSE and saying it's time to get on with it already.

The capacity issue is real - and created largely by Toronto's inability or refusal to confront it. As you rightly point out, the population goes up and up; and faster in the 905 than the 416 so Toronto's "mistakes" have regional effects. I guess that was my point.

Everyone has failed.

One would expect the Mayor of Markham to advocate for an extension into his region. However, I don't think it's unfair to hold him accountable for his timing on the issue. It's certainly not time to get on with it.

All of this speaks to a much larger issue/problem.

There will always be a subway extension more politically advantageous than the DRL.

After the TYSSE we were supposed to get the DRL. That didn't happen of course - then it was Scarborough residents demanding a subway extension. We've been told that after that, the DRL will get support.

But now we have the Sheppard extension and the YNSE, both of which could very well take precedent over the DRL. Why? They make more sense politically.

Tory framed ST as a sort of DRL, but it would've been much smarter to really pitch it as a transformative project for Scarborough, providing unprecedented access to the core. That in conjunction with an upgraded RT and/or other solution would've allowed a full focus on implementing ST and also putting the DRL to the forefront.

 

[Rainforest]

that's a very generous spin/interpretation. Chow wanted DRL to be prioritized and he invented "SmartTrack" saying it would provide relief immediately and, yeah, they'll get to the DRL one day too. DRL was his priority BEFORE he came up with SmartTrack. He certainly didn't accelerate the DRL and I'll leave SmartTrack bashing for another thread but suffice to say, it won't be opening in 7 years and it obviously won't be offering sufficient relief to be relevant to this thread, or to negating the still-immediate need for the DRL.

That's the point.

The real point is that John Tory never taught his SmartTrack as a tool to enable Yonge North ASAP.

I agree that he should have been more proactive on the Relief Line once he got into the office, but his slow actions do not in any way compel Torontonians to support Yonge North ahead of any other project.

This makes no sense. You can only believe someone in your jurisdiction?

You can choose to believe anyone you like, but you can't hold a person accountable for a statement that wasn't directed at you.

If I promise to drive my friend to the airport and fail to do so, my friend will have a good reason to be angry at me. But a bystander who casually overheard our conversation, cannot pop up and start complaining.

SmartTrack goes into Markham so if decides not to build it, I'd be wrong to say, "York Region took him at his word that the Stouffville line would get RER service?"
He said SmartTrack would provide short-term relief to the Yonge line. Anyone who heard that, in Toronto, Timmins or Timbuktu, is entitled to take him at his word.
(And let's not get into what Civic Action-Era John Tory said about transit, before he was campaigning at all.)

The Mayor of Toronto does not answer to the good people of Timmins or Timbuktu. If, say, residents of Timmins think the actions of Toronto affect them, they have to either elect a municipal government able to negotiate with Toronto, or elect an MPP who can raise the issue at the provincial level.

 

[Rainforest]

don't take the Mayor of Markham to task for pushing YNSE and saying it's time to get on with it already.

I don't live in Markham and am not eligible to vote for its Mayor. Therefore, I can't blame him for pushing a project that will benefit his municipality.

However, my view is Toronto-centric because this is where all my interests are concentrated. Thus, I fully understand and support those Toronto politicians who will try to prevent a decision that can make the Toronto's transit system worse off. Super-crowded trains mean slower service, lost productivity, and safety risks in some cases.

I am OK with the Relief Line and YNSE receiving funding at the same time. But if the province can afford only one of them at a time, then it has to be the Relief Line rather than YNSE.

 

[44 North]

Everyone has failed.

One would expect the Mayor of Markham to advocate for an extension into his region. However, I don't think it's unfair to hold him accountable for his timing on the issue. It's certainly not time to get on with it.

All of this speaks to a much larger issue/problem.

There will always be a subway extension more politically advantageous than the DRL.

After the TYSSE we were supposed to get the DRL. That didn't happen of course - then it was Scarborough residents demanding a subway extension. We've been told that after that, the DRL will get support.

But now we have the Sheppard extension and the YNSE, both of which could very well take precedent over the DRL. Why? They make more sense politically.

Tory framed ST as a sort of DRL, but it would've been much smarter to really pitch it as a transformative project for Scarborough, providing unprecedented access to the core. That in conjunction with an upgraded RT and/or other solution would've allowed a full focus on implementing ST and also putting the DRL to the forefront.

Mayor of Markham is a whiny baby. He's also a bit of a bombastic fibber seemingly cut from the same cloth as the likes of Lastman or Ford. Don't believe me try catching him on AM radio on the offchance he's interviewed.

YNSE is like a decade old, which really is newborn in the grand scheme. So a politician (McGuinty) promised something he couldn't deliver immediately, big whoop. Not TO's fault. Considering in the late 00s RL was projected to start around 2019 to be in place by 2031 it's more or less on schedule. Sure we'd all like it sooner, but that should be fine. Especially once Mlinx figures out the northern section. If anyone should be upset it'd be those between Osgoode and Dundas West who'll see no subway since it's been dropped and expunged from Mlinx's radar.

So York Region had to wait a few years. Again, big whoop. At least it's going forward unlike dozens of other projects across the GTHA going back generations that have either been downgraded or DOA. If YR had vision they could've planned things differently. They originally opposed a subway, then sat for years planning nothing, then planned a low-rate bus for Yonge (no, not an LRT - a "BRT" that largely operated in mixed traffic with no grade-separations under major streets). Then they demanded a subway while now banking on ~25km of Line 1 extensions w/in 20yrs. Cuz that $20bn vision is totally realistic. None of these things I'd consider smart or forward-thinking.

Alternatives were available. Say, planning something above a bus, or a YR-owned smaller-scale subway (along the lines of Line 3, 4, 5), or a deal with TO for a phased Line 1 build while *fully* supporting RL, or putting in place interim bus improvements like was suggested by TTC. Lots of options. Instead we get impatience, tantrums, and now backstabbing They childishly want to blame TO, but the blame is largely on them.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The State of New Jersey built its own rapid transit line (called PATH) from Newark and Hobenken, crossing its state line with New York, to the World Trade Center and 33 Street in New York City. Maybe the Region of York should build its own rapid transit line, as well. (You may not like their headway schedules, IE. 35 minutes on Sundays. See link.)

From link.

 

[hw621]

^when did YR oppose a subway? Did they really ask for the brt or Metrolinx just gave them that?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I don't live in Markham and am not eligible to vote for its Mayor. Therefore, I can't blame him for pushing a project that will benefit his municipality.
However, my view is Toronto-centric because this is where all my interests are concentrated. Thus, I fully understand and support those Toronto politicians who will try to prevent a decision that can make the Toronto's transit system worse off. Super-crowded trains mean slower service, lost productivity, and safety risks in some cases.
I am OK with the Relief Line and YNSE receiving funding at the same time. But if the province can afford only one of them at a time, then it has to be the Relief Line rather than YNSE.

I more or less agree, FWIW. But as someone who has long lived within spitting distance of Steeles Avenue, on both sides, I don't much care about the fact one side is one municipality and the other is another, so I try to take a more holistic view.

So York Region had to wait a few years. Again, big whoop. At least it's going forward unlike dozens of other projects across the GTHA going back generations that have either been downgraded or DOA. If YR had vision they could've planned things differently. They originally opposed a subway, then sat for years planning nothing, then planned a low-rate bus for Yonge (no, not an LRT - a "BRT" that largely operated in mixed traffic with no grade-separations under major streets).

I'm not going to get into all of yer stuff but didn't we already establish, just a few pages ago, that you were 100% wrong about this? Why d0 you repeat an outright untruth?

Yonge, from Steeles to 7 was a FULL RAPIDWAY that was going to look EXACTLY the way Highway 7 now looks. The EA was done. Every sliver of land that had to be expropriated was identified; I showed you the damned council minutes! Oh, but it didn't have grade separations??! What does that have to do with anything?

Do I literally have to bury you in proof?

What did you say? No planning? That they didn't consider other modes? Didn't plan for LRT? Didn't consider interim stages?Not smart or forward thinking? Largely in mixed traffic? It's too hard to paste direct links (old agendas are here) but here's a quote from the Rapid Transit Committee's June 2007 meeting - just as the subway announcement threw things in another direction:
The analysis built on a series of Regional policies, including the Transportation Master Plan, Centres and Corridors Study, and Rapid Transit Plan. The rapid transit corridors and alignments originally proposed through the Transportation Master Plan were confirmed through subsequent environmental assessments (EAs), which confirmed that the initial system-wide configuration would be a bus rapid transit (BRT) network.
The EAs contemplated the potential for conversion of the BRT system to a fixed-guideway technology such as light rail transit (LRT), once ridership reached levels able to support the capital and operating costs of a fixed-guideway system

They looked at SIXTEEN possible configurations, including different segments as BRT, LRT and subway. The diagram outlining what you say they never did is right there to see.

The references in those 2007 reports to the Y1 rapidway are too numerous to paste here. But here's one for you:
Stage 1 provides for capital construction of 22 kilometres of segregated rapid transit lanes (“rapidways”) in three segments: Y1, Y2 and H3.

Get it? Not a low-rate bus or whatever you call it; a SEGREGATED RAPID TRANSIT LANE.

What else can I find in these reports? They were set to acquire 80 pieces of land to expand the Yonge ROW. You asked about the heritage area last time, right? Well here you go, from an April 2007 report:
One of the conditions of the approved EA is the requirement to mitigate the impacts of the rapidway implementation on the existing conditions, wherever possible. By way of example, while the existing general traffic lanes were displaced outward within the Yonge Street right-of-way to accommodate the centre rapidways and stations, no new general travel lanes were added.
In addition to the reduction of the travel lanes through the heritage area to 3.25 metres to minimize the impact on existing structures, the width of the outside travel lanes in all other areas was reduced from the 3.5 metres, shown in the EA, to 3.3 metres in accordance with more recent Regional Great Streets recommendations.

Do you see that, again? CENTRE RAPIDWAYS. And just one more - a paste from another report - so you're clear and so everyone can see you don't know what you're talking about. Explicit as can be:

Here's a Toronto Star article mentioning the accompanying TTC busway from Finch to Steeles being put on hold. 2008 TTC minutes also mentioning suspension of the CENTRE MEDIAN busway, from Finch to Steeles

I could go on and on. Let me make it explicit for you and other readers: YOU ARE WRONG. AGAIN. Your description of what was planned was completely innacurate and the arguments that proceeded from it, fallacious.

Then they demanded a subway while now banking on ~25km of Line 1 extensions w/in 20yrs. Cuz that $20bn vision is totally realistic. None of these things I'd consider smart or forward-thinking.

Opinions widely vary on these threads but no one is as consistently WRONG as you are about simple facts. I think we can all see that for good.

They didn't DEMAND a subway. As I already demonstrated, McGuinty "offered" the subway and they had virtually no idea it was coming. And then you go on and on about the 25km of extensions up to Major Mac blah blah blah. Red herrings abound.

Highway 7 is the only issue here and they have been consistent for over a decade on it. Everything you say they didn't do, they did do. Everything you say they weren't going to do, they were going to do.

What you consider neither smart nor forward thinking is a complete fiction.

Instead we get impatience, tantrums, and now backstabbing They childishly want to blame TO, but the blame is largely on them.

You're wrong - but I can see how you'd form the wrong opinion when you literally don't even understand the first thing about how the Viva system was conceived and the subway introduced. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to prove, over the course of literally years now, that you are wrong about fundamental things and you keep coming back and saying them again.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The State of New Jersey built its own rapid transit line (called PATH) from Newark and Hobenken, crossing its state line with New York, to the World Trade Center and 33 Street in New York City.

OMG! It's like living in a whirlpool of insanity. This has been debunked multiple times and keeps coming up.
What does PATH stand for?
PORT
AUTHORITY
TRANS
HUDSON

Do you see "New Jersey" in there anywhere?
No - it was built by the PORT AUTHORITY; a body for which we have no equivalent. I mean, this is the kind of fact-finding you can do on wikipedia!
Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) is a rapid transit system serving Newark, Harrison, Hoboken, and Jersey City in metropolitan northern New Jersey, as well as lower and midtown Manhattan in New York City. The PATH is operated by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Wholly. Owned.

(amusingly, I didn't know all the pre-PATH history but it was a private line and it went bankrupt in 1962. The State of New Jersey had nothing to do with any of it and so your use of it as an example of a municipality building its own line into another is totally off base.)

 

[44 North]

^when did YR oppose a subway? Did they really ask for the brt or Metrolinx just gave them that?

Years before the Big Move in 07, which some here act like was Year Zero, TTC considered extending Y/US north. Possibly north of Steeles. York Region wasn't interested.

I'm not going to get into all of yer stuff but didn't we already establish, just a few pages ago, that you were 100% wrong about this? Why d you repeat an outright untruth?

Yonge, from Steeles to 7 was a FULL RAPIDWAY that was going to look EXACTLY the way Highway 7 now looks. The EA was done. Every sliver of land that had to be expropriated was identified; I showed you the damned council minutes! Oh, but it didn't have grade separations??! What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't cheaping out - it was part of a network that went along with an overall Centres & Corridors strategy

And how would it have gotten from Steeles to Finch, eh? Mixed traffic. And how would it have continued north from 7? Mixed traffic. Were the issues resolved about getting through Thornhill between Steeles and 7? No, because they junked it for subways...just as they're doing on Jane north of 7, on Yonge north of 7, and with their ludicrous vision of +20km of subways in as many years. Forward-thinking, more like absurd-thinking.

And again, a BRT (that's not a BRT) isn't an LRT. So continually claiming - in very long repeated post - that York Region was 'totally gunna build an LRT' isn't true at all. They were planning a system of buses (on the lowest spectrum of "BRT" if there was such a spectrum). Simple as that. Why so hard to accept, you're certainly not fooling me.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Years before the Big Move in 07, which some here act like was Year Zero, TTC considered extending Y/US north. Possibly north of Steeles. York Region wasn't interested.



And how would it have gotten from Steeles to Finch, eh? Mixed traffic. And how would it have continued north from 7? Mixed traffic. Were the issues resolved about getting through Thornhill between Steeles and 7? No, because they junked it for subways...just as they're doing on Jane north of 7, on Yonge north of 7, and with their ludicrous vision of +20km of subways in as many years. Forward-thinking, more like absurd-thinking.

And again, a BRT (that's not a BRT) isn't an LRT. So continually claiming - in very long repeated post - that York Region was 'totally gunna build an LRT' isn't true at all. They were planning a system of buses (on the lowest spectrum of "BRT" if there was such a spectrum). Simple as that. Why so hard to accept, you're certainly not fooling me.

Y1, Y2, and H3 were all planned to be implemented immediately. That's 8km of BRT on Yonge and 6 km of BRT on Highway 7, all of which would be in segregated/dedicated ROWs. Yes I agree that there would have been (and still is) a missing link between Steeles and Finch, but that was up to the TTC and the City of Toronto to solve.

I don't think the vision of 20+km of subways in York Region was a thought from the beginning. Yes I agree that having both sides of Line 1 extended to Major Mackenzie is completely ludicrously insane, but all that started with the TYSSE and YNSE north of Steeles to Highway 7. If both subway extensions were/are built to their original planned extended termini at Steeles, then York Region wouldn't have pushed for the subways to be extended even more as they would have built the Keele and Yonge BRT's to Steeles West and Steeles.

It is unfortunate that the most recent York Region Transportation Master Plan has the backbone of the transit all funneling to subway stations at Highway 7, with proposed plans for them to be extended further. However, I don't think it is justified to put all the blame on York Region of scaling back BRT projects due to subway extensions, as that blame should be placed on the Province for seriously proposing the idea in the first place.

Yonge, from Steeles to 7 was a FULL RAPIDWAY that was going to look EXACTLY the way Highway 7 now looks.

I wouldn't say EXACTLY, as Yonge would have had 4 general vehicles lanes, whereas Highway 7 has 6.

 

[44 North]

Y1, Y2, and H3 were all planned to be implemented immediately. That's 8km of BRT on Yonge and 6 km of BRT on Highway 7, all of which would be in segregated/dedicated ROWs. Yes I agree that there would have been (and still is) a missing link between Steeles and Finch, but that was up to the TTC and the City of Toronto to solve.

I don't think the vision of 20+km of subways in York Region was a thought from the beginning. Yes I agree that having both sides of Line 1 extended to Major Mackenzie is completely ludicrously insane, but all that started with the TYSSE and YNSE north of Steeles to Highway 7. If both subway extensions were/are built to their original planned extended termini at Steeles, then York Region wouldn't have pushed for the subways to be extended even more as they would have built the Keele and Yonge BRT's to Steeles West and Steeles.

It is unfortunate that the most recent York Region Transportation Master Plan has the backbone of the transit all funneling to subway stations at Highway 7, with proposed plans for them to be extended further. However, I don't think it is justified to put all the blame on York Region of scaling back BRT projects due to subway extensions, as that blame should be placed on the Province for seriously proposing the idea in the first place.

The BRT has mixed traffic sections in RH, south of Steeles big question mark and mixed traffic, and through Thornhill a challenge. Sure that latter one was segregated on paper, but have a hard time believing those kinds of lane reductions on such a thoroughfare would've went through. That's just my opinion, and it's hard to state otherwise since it didn't go through.

Yes a bus can be upgraded to an LRT, and I guess 2-3 car trains can run in mixed traffic (tho hard to imagine that). If they actually planned an LRT or some future-proofed rail system from the outset and figured out the major issues, then jumped from that to a Line 1 extension, that's reasonable. Not unlike Line 3->SSE. Would be costly, but neat and dynamic with major infrastructure, tunnels, and sub-grade stations. But as it stands it went from a BRT lite with mixed traffic sections in the most vital part to a subway. Now lots of subways.

 

[Rainforest]

OMG! It's like living in a whirlpool of insanity. This has been debunked multiple times and keeps coming up.
What does PATH stand for?
PORT
AUTHORITY
TRANS
HUDSON

Do you see "New Jersey" in there anywhere?
No - it was built by the PORT AUTHORITY; a body for which we have no equivalent. I mean, this is the kind of fact-finding you can do on wikipedia!
Port Authority Trans-Hudson (PATH) is a rapid transit system serving Newark, Harrison, Hoboken, and Jersey City in metropolitan northern New Jersey, as well as lower and midtown Manhattan in New York City. The PATH is operated by the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Wholly. Owned.

(amusingly, I didn't know all the pre-PATH history but it was a private line and it went bankrupt in 1962. The State of New Jersey had nothing to do with any of it and so your use of it as an example of a municipality building its own line into another is totally off base.)

In addition to PATH train system, they also have a system called "New Jersey Transit": https://www.njtransit.com, https://www.njtransit.com/pdf/rail/Rail_System_Map.pdf . It is a commuter rail system, that shares the Newark Penn station with the PATH trains, but then takes a more northerly route and arrives to a terminus at New York Penn Station, basically in the middle of Manhattan and located underground.

Of course we see a bit of a jurisdictional quirk there: one bank of the Hudson river belongs to the State of New York, the other bank to the State of New Jersey. I guess that's the reason New York and its subway system didn't expand across Hudson, even though the lines do extend north and east of Manhattan. Instead, two rail systems PATH and NJ Transit, based on mainline rail, were created.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And how would it have gotten from Steeles to Finch, eh? Mixed traffic. And how would it have continued north from 7? Mixed traffic.

At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you don't understand but you have to stop coming here and spreading overt, easily disproven misinformation. Leo already addressed it, and I've spent literally years addressing it to no effect but let me try one more time:
-Y1 was the FIRST phase (note the 1!!), building a rapdiway from Steeles to 7.
-Y2 is the second phase (note the 2!!), building a rapidway from 7 to Major Mac. Despite your assertion/question, it is currently under construction and it is a full rapidway. Just like the Y1 segment, which - despite your imagination - was also a full rapidway.
-As I already proved, unequivocally and unassailably, the TTC was working on a similar plan of their own from Finch to Steeles. You've seen the reference on the UT forum and you've seen the minutes I linked to above so either you legitimately don't understand or you can't. Either way, you're wrong. AGAIN.

NEITHER OF THESE 3 SEGMENTS (Finch/Steeles, Steeles/7, north of 7) WAS IN MIXED TRAFFIC.
QUESTION ANSWERED.
CASE CLOSED.

Don't give me this "on paper," equivocation. They had the EA done and expropriations ready, it was a complete plan, altered by the subway announcement.

All of your arguments proceed from false information and false premises. They are building rapidways north 7 LITERALLY RIGHT NOW (or, maybe they take off weekends, actually), putting a lie to your claim they are waiting on a subway there too.

And again, a BRT (that's not a BRT) isn't an LRT. So continually claiming - in very long repeated post - that York Region was 'totally gunna build an LRT' isn't true at all. They were planning a system of buses (on the lowest spectrum of "BRT" if there was such a spectrum). Simple as that. Why so hard to accept, you're certainly not fooling me.

You're too foolish to be fooled.
As I PROVED, they evaluated BRT, LRT and subway and chose BRT designed to be upgraded. Not that it will help you, but for the benefit of everyone else, here is their evaluation matrix...

As everyone here - except you, I assume, knows - Viva launched Phase 1 without the rapidways at first. They served express stops and had signal priority but operated in mixed-traffic. That would be the "lowest spectrum." I'm not sure why you think implementing a low-cost system that's designed to be uprgradable is proof that they didn't do planning or consider alternatives but I have PROVED you were wrong on every assertion you've made.

In the meantime, you're simultaneously criticizing them for dreaming of a subway they don't need and bashing them for implementing the "lowest spectrum" of rapid transit. So I'm just hoping a moderator will step in already and tell you to stop saying things that aren't true, because it's exhausting and not constructive.

Y1, Y2, and H3 were all planned to be implemented immediately. That's 8km of BRT on Yonge and 6 km of BRT on Highway 7, all of which would be in segregated/dedicated ROWs. Yes I agree that there would have been (and still is) a missing link between Steeles and Finch, but that was up to the TTC and the City of Toronto to solve.

And as I showed, for those who don't remember, it was solved. TTC was going to build one. They weren't as far along in their planning as YR, but it was a near-term project when the subway was announced.

Here's a https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Co...03/Feb_19_2003/Other/Transit_Benefits_Of_.jsphttps://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Co...03/Feb_19_2003/Other/Transit_Benefits_Of_.jsp (!) that proves it, again.

for ol 44's benefit, again: NOT MIXED TRAFFIC.

I wouldn't say EXACTLY, as Yonge would have had 4 general vehicles lanes, whereas Highway 7 has 6.

Yeah, I said it would look the same - in terms of design - not that the cross-section was the exact same width. Even the text I posted above shows the lanes were narrower in the heritage district, for example.

North44's ludicrous assertion is that they were going to operate buses in mixed traffic. He keeps saying it. It's a complete lie and/or misunderstanding. They would have been nice, red median lanes with full rapidway stations, just like the ones on 7 (and going in on Yonge, north of 7, apparently without his knowledge).

Of course we see a bit of a jurisdictional quirk there: one bank of the Hudson river belongs to the State of New York, the other bank to the State of New Jersey. I guess that's the reason New York and its subway system didn't expand across Hudson, even though the lines do extend north and east of Manhattan. Instead, two rail systems PATH and NJ Transit, based on mainline rail, were created.

Right. But we're not talking about crossing state lines here. So, first WKLis's mention on PATH as an example of a different government building transit was completely wrong. Secondly, the MTA (as many here already know) operates multiple transit systems that extend WELL beyond the NYC boundaries, within New York State, out to the very tip of Long Island, 2 counties away, for example. So, if we're looking at regional transit precedents from NYC, there you go.

 

[44 North]

At this point, I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you don't understand but you have to stop coming here and spreading overt, easily disproven misinformation. Leo already addressed it, and I've spent literally years addressing it to no effect but let me try one more time:
-Y1 was the FIRST phase (note the 1!!), building a rapdiway from Steeles to 7.
-Y2 is the second phase (note the 2!!), building a rapidway from 7 to Major Mac. Despite your assertion/question, it is currently under construction and it is a full rapidway. Just like the Y1 segment, which - despite your imagination - was also a full rapidway.
-As I already proved, unequivocally and unassailably, the TTC was working on a similar plan of their own from Finch to Steeles. You've seen the reference on the UT forum and you've seen the minutes I linked to above so either you legitimately don't understand or you can't. Either way, you're wrong. AGAIN.

NEITHER OF THESE 3 SEGMENTS (Finch/Steeles, Steeles/7, north of 7) WAS IN MIXED TRAFFIC.
QUESTION ANSWERED.
CASE CLOSED.

Don't give me this "on paper," equivocation. They had the EA done and expropriations ready, it was a complete plan, altered by the subway announcement.

All of your arguments proceed from false information and false premises. They are building rapidways north 7 LITERALLY RIGHT NOW (or, maybe they take off weekends, actually), putting a lie to your claim they are waiting on a subway there too.



You're too foolish to be fooled.
As I PROVED, they evaluated BRT, LRT and subway and chose BRT designed to be upgraded. Not that it will help you, but for the benefit of everyone else, here is their evaluation matrix...


As everyone here - except you, I assume, knows - Viva launched Phase 1 without the rapidways at first. They served express stops and had signal priority but operated in mixed-traffic. That would be the "lowest spectrum." I'm not sure why you think implementing a low-cost system that's designed to be uprgradable is proof that they didn't do planning or consider alternatives but I have PROVED you were wrong on every assertion you've made.

In the meantime, you're simultaneously criticizing them for dreaming of a subway they don't need and bashing them for implementing the "lowest spectrum" of rapid transit. So I'm just hoping a moderator will step in already and tell you to stop saying things that aren't true, because it's exhausting and not constructive.



And as I showed, for those who don't remember, it was solved. TTC was going to build one. They weren't as far along in their planning as YR, but it was a near-term project when the subway was announced.

Here's a https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Co...03/Feb_19_2003/Other/Transit_Benefits_Of_.jsphttps://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Co...03/Feb_19_2003/Other/Transit_Benefits_Of_.jsp (!) that proves it, again.

for ol 44's benefit, again: NOT MIXED TRAFFIC.



Yeah, I said it would look the same - in terms of design - not that the cross-section was the exact same width. Even the text I posted above shows the lanes were narrower in the heritage district, for example.

North44's ludicrous assertion is that they were going to operate buses in mixed traffic. He keeps saying it. It's a complete lie and/or misunderstanding. They would have been nice, red median lanes with full rapidway stations, just like the ones on 7 (and going in on Yonge, north of 7, apparently without his knowledge).

As I stated the rapidway ceases through part of RH, as planned and u/c right now. Is it still BRT when operating in mixed traffic or a full rapidway. Is that upgradeable to LRT. Are plans for a bus system the same as plans for an LRT system. How far along was TTC and City Council in accepting transit-only lanes through North York, let alone a far-off, maybe, one day LRT system. Was that a done deal and shovel-ready. These are mostly rhetorical and have answers, some being more subjective.

But what's to argue. It was a plan for a lower-tier bus system, with some holes in it, that got upgraded to a 6-car subway. What's the issue.