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

[Rainforest]

If we based transit projects solely on current ridership, nothing would ever be built. Infrastructure must be built for the future. Arguments about X% capacity miss the point entirely...these arguments are not slavishly followed anywhere else in the world and are not used even for other types of transit projects in Toronto, so why apply arbitrary and utterly meaningless standards of "justification" here? Lines must end at logical terminus points and a human being, not a calculator, must decide if extending up to the next logical terminus is worthwhile. If the fare boundary is removed, Steeles makes for an illogical terminus. There's nothing there and there never will be.

OK. What do you expect at Jane / Hwy 7, that will make it so much more logical terminus than Steeles?

Local development along a line will not generate as many rides as buses and cars can feed in...rides due to development are always the bonus. Neither Steeles nor Jane is remotely busy at Jane & Steeles...Jane's ridership drops to virtually zero at that point and Steeles isn't much higher.

Once Jane / Steeles has a subway station, a number of riders will travel north on Jane and then south-east on subway. This is a detour, but will be the fastest route for some. Steeles has residential density around Weston, Islington, Kipling, and can get more. With a subway station at Jane, many will ride Steeles bus to it, rather than N-S buses to Bloor.

VIVA from the west, Jane, and other YRT routes can connect to a Steeles / Jane terminus just as easily as to Hwy 7 / Jane. If needed, you can build a bus-only bridge over Hwy 407 and York rail sub, that would be a lot cheaper than $700 million allocated for those 2 km of subway.

Bringing the subway another 2km to Hwy 7 was the *only* way to get the to-York U stretch, or anything at all, built. Period.

This is probably true, but speaks only about the quality of transit planning in GTA, not about the inherent merit of the scheme.

All of the transit dollars flowing or promised to flow today for a variety of projects hinged around these 2km, which just happen to terminate at a major growth node (where growth is designated and permitted to occur) and a Viva line along Hwy 7, instead of a UPS depot in the middle of nowhere with terrible links to other corridors, no decent development potential, and no existing ridership base to build upon. Transit use beyond poor people forced to take it must be created and coaxed into existence and this simply would not happen at Jane & Steeles. Yes, it can happen 2km north. That's just how it works.

Growth may be permitted to occur, it does not guarantee that it will actually occur. To justify the subway extension, the VCC hub has to become comparable to, say, the Yonge / Sheppard / Finch node. Will it? - that's anyone's guess.

 

[Second_in_pie]

OK. What do you expect at Jane / Hwy 7, that will make it so much more logical terminus than Steeles?

Vaughn Corprate Centre! An urban planner's paradise, with 30 story buildings in the centre of a grand high density neighborhood, based on transit and active transportation! What more could you want?!

Once Jane / Steeles has a subway station, a number of riders will travel north on Jane and then south-east on subway. This is a detour, but will be the fastest route for some. Steeles has residential density around Weston, Islington, Kipling, and can get more. With a subway station at Jane, many will ride Steeles bus to it, rather than N-S buses to Bloor.

VIVA from the west, Jane, and other YRT routes can connect to a Steeles / Jane terminus just as easily as to Hwy 7 / Jane. If needed, you can build a bus-only bridge over Hwy 407 and York rail sub, that would be a lot cheaper than $700 million allocated for those 2 km of subway.

That's a rather hollow argument. Steeles West would exist, whether it's the terminus or if VCC was the terminus. There are several advantages to going to VCC though. First of all, it makes it a lot more convenient for people going between other locations on the line and the urban growth centre that is VCC. It also directly connects with Viva Purple at Highway 7 and the future 407 Transitway, linking to two different rapid transit lines on top of the Jane LRT.

Growth may be permitted to occur, it does not guarantee that it will actually occur. To justify the subway extension, the VCC hub has to become comparable to, say, the Yonge / Sheppard / Finch node. Will it? - that's anyone's guess.

Do you remember what Yonge and Finch looked like when the subway was built there? Anyways, I expect that VCC will be getting started by the time the subway actually reaches there. It's a perfect example of proper transit thinking.

 

[EnviroTO]

The lamest part about Vaughan Centre is the fact Vaughan was unwilling to kick things off by building their new city hall there despite a study telling them to do so. After a report the commissioned told them to build at VCC they restudied with new criteria. Instead they chose to build a new city hall in la-la-land. They could have build a high-rise office building and an urban square near the subway station. They built a low-rise sprawling building with a suburban square in a location where nobody will be walking around.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

OK. What do you expect at Jane / Hwy 7, that will make it so much more logical terminus than Steeles?

Gee, a large suburban downtown with connections to Viva, or a UPS depot...which do you think makes a better transfer point?

Once Jane / Steeles has a subway station, a number of riders will travel north on Jane and then south-east on subway. This is a detour, but will be the fastest route for some. Steeles has residential density around Weston, Islington, Kipling, and can get more. With a subway station at Jane, many will ride Steeles bus to it, rather than N-S buses to Bloor.

VIVA from the west, Jane, and other YRT routes can connect to a Steeles / Jane terminus just as easily as to Hwy 7 / Jane. If needed, you can build a bus-only bridge over Hwy 407 and York rail sub, that would be a lot cheaper than $700 million allocated for those 2 km of subway.

Nobody on Jane is going to get to the Spadina line via Steeles...the number will be zero. There's no 'density' of any sort or plans for anything along Steeles west of York (meaning nothing is expected in the future), and even if there was more than a handful of towers strung along Steeles, this has no bearing on where the line terminus should be placed, even if transit's mode share reached 100% along Steeles west of York. All you're doing is supporting the simple existence of a station at Steeles. And the last 2km will not cost $700M.

Growth may be permitted to occur, it does not guarantee that it will actually occur. To justify the subway extension, the VCC hub has to become comparable to, say, the Yonge / Sheppard / Finch node. Will it? - that's anyone's guess.

There's no formula that justifies transit. I know you think you're being all impartial and logical by sticking to meaningless ratios as proof that something is justified, but you're not. You can't quantify good city-building practices. You say the terminus should not be at Hwy 7 because a proposed development like VCC may not occur, so the terminus should be at Steeles because the industrial wasteland along Steeles *might* materialize even though it's not permitted, proposed, or in the realm of plausibility? That makes no sense.

The only reason Yonge & Finch is not an abysmal terminus is the presence of the hydro corridor, which made lots of parking available.

 

[Anth]

If we based transit projects solely on current ridership, nothing would ever be built. Infrastructure must be built for the future. Arguments about X% capacity miss the point entirely...these arguments are not slavishly followed anywhere else in the world and are not used even for other types of transit projects in Toronto, so why apply arbitrary and utterly meaningless standards of "justification" here? Lines must end at logical terminus points and a human being, not a calculator, must decide if extending up to the next logical terminus is worthwhile.

If this were my site, I'd sticky this right at the top of the transit forum.

 

[Rainforest]

There's no formula that justifies transit. I know you think you're being all impartial and logical by sticking to meaningless ratios as proof that something is justified, but you're not. You can't quantify good city-building practices. You say the terminus should not be at Hwy 7 because a proposed development like VCC may not occur, so the terminus should be at Steeles because the industrial wasteland along Steeles *might* materialize even though it's not permitted, proposed, or in the realm of plausibility? That makes no sense.

But if you can't quantify good city-building practices, how do you know that VCC is the best place to extend the subway? A lot of other spots within 416, or just outside it, could potentially be developed to high density.

Nobody on Jane is going to get to the Spadina line via Steeles...the number will be zero.

Why not - if one lives on Jane between Finch and Steeles and needs to go downtown, it is a 5 min ride to Steeles West station and then a subway ride. Any other route would involve either a longer trip on surface, or an extra transfer.

There's no 'density' of any sort or plans for anything along Steeles west of York (meaning nothing is expected in the future), and even if there was more than a handful of towers strung along Steeles, this has no bearing on where the line terminus should be placed, even if transit's mode share reached 100% along Steeles west of York.

Have you been there? There is a number of highrises on Kipling, Islington, and Weston, all near Steeles.

It is just the stretch of Steels between Keele and Jane that looks barren.

All you're doing is supporting the simple existence of a station at Steeles. And the last 2km will not cost $700M.

Well, strictly from the passenger flow point of view, York U would be the logical terminus of that subway line. Steeles West is not a very important node on its own (although, as I pointed above, not completely lifeless).

However, York U certainly would not be happy to become a transit hub. To relieve its ground from that role, the subway must go a little further.

 

[kEiThZ]

If we based transit projects solely on current ridership, nothing would ever be built. Infrastructure must be built for the future. Arguments about X% capacity miss the point entirely...these arguments are not slavishly followed anywhere else in the world and are not used even for other types of transit projects in Toronto, so why apply arbitrary and utterly meaningless standards of "justification" here? Lines must end at logical terminus points and a human being, not a calculator, must decide if extending up to the next logical terminus is worthwhile. If the fare boundary is removed, Steeles makes for an illogical terminus. There's nothing there and there never will be.

Amen. It's that kind of artificial standard and fuzzy logic that cost Scarborough the BD extension to Kennedy. Poor ridership numbers being used to justify an illogical terminus. I'd love for some developer to propose a 30 storey condo at Kennedy station and see how that goes down since it's apparently more important than STC.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

But if you can't quantify good city-building practices, how do you know that VCC is the best place to extend the subway? A lot of other spots within 416, or just outside it, could potentially be developed to high density.

Good grief...VCC is the *next* place to extend the subway, not the best (which cannot be measured). Shockingly, politicians and planners have brains that are capable of basing a decision like how far to extend a line on more than whatever ratios a computer spits out. Potential development is totally irrelevant when real developments are planned elsewhere.

Why not - if one lives on Jane between Finch and Steeles and needs to go downtown, it is a 5 min ride to Steeles West station and then a subway ride. Any other route would involve either a longer trip on surface, or an extra transfer.

So a few hundred people might use a station at Steeles & Jane that didn't arrive via the Steeles bus...so what? Please, acknowledge that the few thousand people living on Jane between Steeles and Finch have no bearing on whether or not the line should terminate at Steeles.

Have you been there? There is a number of highrises on Kipling, Islington, and Weston, all near Steeles.

It is just the stretch of Steels between Keele and Jane that looks barren.

Uh, you might want to make a trip out there. You're thinking of Finch. There's absolutely nothing along Steeles except for a handful of towers at Kipling (which are swallowed up by parkland and industrial wasteland as far as 'density' goes).

Well, strictly from the passenger flow point of view, York U would be the logical terminus of that subway line. Steeles West is not a very important node on its own (although, as I pointed above, not completely lifeless).

However, York U certainly would not be happy to become a transit hub. To relieve its ground from that role, the subway must go a little further.

There is no single logical terminus for a line, there are a series of places where it makes sense to stop...Steeles is not one of them, especially since the *only* reason to stop a line at Steeles is the fare boundary, which could be removed in a few years.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Again, do you really expect the subway extensions to carry the maximum theoretical capacity of the line? I bet you won't apply that criteria to an LRT line, which will invariably cover stretches easily served by buses. Both Spadina and Yonge need to be extended and Hwy 7 makes a natural (and artificial, due to Viva and development) terminus for both lines. You should come up with some shred of rationale for terminating the lines south of Hwy 7, but you don't seem up to the task.

What again? Are you saying that the ridership demand ranges that the TTC uses for each mode of transport are the maximum theoretical capacities? That's lunacy!!! Show me where I supported overbuilding a line.

My points have not been that we should not be building the subways but that other options (namely GO) should have been evaluated first. Just as you like to criticise Toronto for shoe horning their chosen LRT's everywhere, York has decided that they want a subway and have ignored any other options.

No, Eglinton does not 'need a subway' more than Yonge needs to be extended north of Finch to replace that ridiculous parade of buses and comical overabundance of overlapping routes.

Eglinton was simply an example. The discussion for an Eglinton Subway over a Yonge extension is beyond this thread.

Do you think that extending the line up to RHC will eliminate that 'ridiculous parade of buses and comical overabundance of overlapping routes'. Nope RHC will still be a hub for YRT bus routes. All you've done is move the hub.

The reality is that literally about 5 people oppose development along Sheppard, only they are quite vocal and trample over the silent majority. Sheppard East is actually one of the densest corridors in the city and no transit line outside the YUS loop has ever been run out to as much as exists around and east of Don Mills station. Sheppard is seeing vast amounts of development, even without including all the density unlocked in North York Centre. Spadina is seeing none because the city hasn't permitted any, except along Sheppard east of Downsview, where the city has permitted it. The Downsview area is seeing substantial developments. Sheppard's ridership was forecasted to be higher but the line was also supposed to be much longer...it doesn't change the fact that transit use went up along the corridor and continues to grow, even though only a fraction of the line was built.

Read my post I said 'Transit oriented development' sure there's density along Sheppard but those people are not using the subway as much as was expected. Now that may be due to the fact that it's really only half a line, but we've had the same experience along Spadina.

The true meme here is stupid anti-subway arguments that employ neither facts nor common sense. Everything you say can be paraphrased as "OMG, teh 905 doesn't deserve teh subway!!!"

Joy, more insults. I suppose this is my cue to call you a Subway luvr who likes to draw lines all over the map saying lets put subways here and damn the costs!

The point about driving to stations was *your* point. Your argument makes so little sense, no wonder even you can't follow it.

The entire city is autocentric, all the more reason to expand appealing and effective transit infrastructure like the subway network.

So lets review:
I said

As a fellow York Regionite perhaps you could help me understand why a subway was 'chosen' for improved transit in the region rather than something like say GO or LRT's? The new subway extensions barely break into the southern portion of York Region in areas that currently have no local demand for a subway. People will still have to take transit or their car to the subway station. What of the people in Northern York region? How do you think people living in King City or Keswick feel about paying for a subway that they'll likely never use.

you responded

Going to Vaughan means basically another 2km - a trivial addition. GO serves 'the suburbs' but is of limited use, particularly since virtually everyone in the suburbs has to drive to a station. You should check out what's actually proposed for some of the sites along the subways in York. Before you say they're only proposing it to get the subway extensions or that it'll never happen, remember what Yonge & Sheppard or Finch looked like before the subway extension...a whole bunch of bungalows. Have you ever even been to Thornhill? The only real issue with the extensions is the double fare, not the amount of existing or planned development (even if the subway isn't double fare, the YRT feeder routes are, for now, anyway).

and I said in response

Weather the service is GO or subway there will still be a fraction of people who will be driving to the station, otherwise why would they build those mega lots at Steeles West, 407, RHC, and Langstaff. I don't follow your point there. I have seen the plans and still hold a I'll believe it when I see it stance. I can see lots of opposition to the 30 storey towers proposed for the VCC site coming. Plus I don't think Walmart or the AMC complex will be going anywhere nor will they be all to pleased to see thier parking lots developed into a 'downtown'. I can't forsee any development that will completely take away the car centric nature of the area.

Your comment implied that by definition all GO train riders drive to the station while by definition all riders boarding the subway at RHC will be walk up (or at worst bussed in). The RHC will not eliminate park and ride trips and thus is not a valid point in support of the extension.

Wal*Mart will be very pleased to have thousands of new customers at their doorstep and see the value of their property climb in anticipation of redevelopment. You're free to pretend the development isn't happening when the cranes pop up on the horizon.

Again I'll believe it when I see it. I've never seen a Wal Mart in the middle of an urban centre. They'd likely fight for a huge settlement with the gov't in order to sell the land.

You really don't know why terminating at Hwy 7, a growth node with a connection to Viva, is better than stopping in a field in the middle of nowhere at Steeles? Seriously? Have you never been to a city or used a vehicle before?

Regional services are being expanded along with the subway extensions. Both are being done, both need to be done. Money for one project is not available for other projects, by the way. York Region also has future LRT plans, plans that will complement the subway extensions, not replace, them, which they cannot.

When ridership projections show that demand will be far below subway standards then I say yes. We are talking about passenger demand (particularly at VCC) that could easily be handled by an LRT. Which for the same cost could probably run up Jane to Vaughan Mills/Wonderland.

Gee, a large suburban downtown with connections to Viva, or a UPS depot...which do you think makes a better transfer point?

A hem...
http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/newscentre/projects/steele_corridor.cfm

Steeles Ave W (Jane to Keele) plan. Granted not as grand as RHC or VCC.

What do you think is at VCC right now btw? A CAT dealership.

The lamest part about Vaughan Centre is the fact Vaughan was unwilling to kick things off by building their new city hall there despite a study telling them to do so. After a report the commissioned told them to build at VCC they restudied with new criteria. Instead they chose to build a new city hall in la-la-land. They could have build a high-rise office building and an urban square near the subway station. They built a low-rise sprawling building with a suburban square in a location where nobody will be walking around.

Bravo!!!

 

[Second_in_pie]

But if you can't quantify good city-building practices, how do you know that VCC is the best place to extend the subway? A lot of other spots within 416, or just outside it, could potentially be developed to high density.

They could, but VCC has already been designated as an area where high density development and employment areas are going to be.

Why not - if one lives on Jane between Finch and Steeles and needs to go downtown, it is a 5 min ride to Steeles West station and then a subway ride. Any other route would involve either a longer trip on surface, or an extra transfer.

Maybe a couple, but I think that most would just take the Finch LRT to Finch West station. Again, Steeles West will exist whether it's extended to VCC or not. Seriously, could we not just invest the $400 million max to extend it to a place that will already be a major transportation node and might, just might be a prospering urban centre?

When ridership projections show that demand will be far below subway standards then I say yes. We are talking about passenger demand (particularly at VCC) that could easily be handled by an LRT. Which for the same cost could probably run up Jane to Vaughan Mills/Wonderland.

I'd like to introduce you to this:

If we based transit projects solely on current ridership, nothing would ever be built. Infrastructure must be built for the future. Arguments about X% capacity miss the point entirely...these arguments are not slavishly followed anywhere else in the world and are not used even for other types of transit projects in Toronto, so why apply arbitrary and utterly meaningless standards of "justification" here? Lines must end at logical terminus points and a human being, not a calculator, must decide if extending up to the next logical terminus is worthwhile. If the fare boundary is removed, Steeles makes for an illogical terminus. There's nothing there and there never will be.

Eglinton was simply an example. The discussion for an Eglinton Subway over a Yonge extension is beyond this thread.

Do you think that extending the line up to RHC will eliminate that 'ridiculous parade of buses and comical overabundance of overlapping routes'. Nope RHC will still be a hub for YRT bus routes. All you've done is move the hub.

When Yonge was extended from Eglinton to Finch, did all the busses that terminated at Eglinton suddenly move up to Finch? I don't think so. They were spread out along the other stations, and the same will happen with this extension.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

They could, but VCC has already been designated as an area where high density development and employment areas are going to be.

Maybe a couple, but I think that most would just take the Finch LRT to Finch West station. Again, Steeles West will exist whether it's extended to VCC or not. Seriously, could we not just invest the $400 million max to extend it to a place that will already be a major transportation node and might, just might be a prospering urban centre?

I'd like to introduce you to this:

Originally Posted by Scarberiankhatru
If we based transit projects solely on current ridership, nothing would ever be built. Infrastructure must be built for the future. Arguments about X% capacity miss the point entirely...these arguments are not slavishly followed anywhere else in the world and are not used even for other types of transit projects in Toronto, so why apply arbitrary and utterly meaningless standards of "justification" here? Lines must end at logical terminus points and a human being, not a calculator, must decide if extending up to the next logical terminus is worthwhile. If the fare boundary is removed, Steeles makes for an illogical terminus. There's nothing there and there never will be.

When Yonge was extended from Eglinton to Finch, did all the busses that terminated at Eglinton suddenly move up to Finch? I don't think so. They were spread out along the other stations, and the same will happen with this extension.

Does anyone understand the concept of ridership projections!!!!!!

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Man - there's a lot of crazy going on here! I can't keep track of who has said which crazy thing so I'll just offer two comments.

1) Creating a new transit hub at hwy 7 does a lot more than just moving a hub and leaving buses on the road.
Firstly, it is getting buses off a rather crucial stretch of road, namely Yonge St at the TO/YR border.
Secondly, Viva buses to the north will be operating in rapidways and not mixed traffic. Thus, it is a fundamental change in how Yonge Street is used by public transit in northern Toronto and through York Region.

2) I've said this 10X in this and other threads when people blah blah about how there's nothing at VCC and nothing at Yonge/7 and why not build to areas where we KNOW there is development.
Under provincial law (ie Places to Grow) those two corners (Jane/7, Yonge/&) HAVE to be high density developments.
The plans for Langstaff are well along and super ambitious.
Vaughan is lagging (and I totally agree their city hall should have gone there) but it's not just some random greenfield which could somehow ending up being another sprawling subdivision.

Thus - and follow me here - it would be nothing less than utter stupidity to stop either the Yonge or Spadina lines at Steeles, 2km short of planned, designated, regional transit/growth nodes.

I won't get into the chicken/egg or 416/905 arguments beyond that. And I won't use any more bold.

I can understand how years of the TTC getting short-changed over so many years has caused a certain amount of idealistic atrophy but this is big picture, regional planning, people. This is the ENTIRE POINT of the new provincial planning regime: Concentrate development at pedestrian-friendly, transit-centric growth nodes.

 

[kEiThZ]

Does anyone understand the concept of ridership projections!!!!!!

...because the TTC did such a bang up job with those in the past (cough subway cough)

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Ridership projections are frequently wrong and are loaded with all kinds of bias and unpredictability...inflated to support one project, lowered to oppose another, etc. Far more people use the 190 than was originally projected and service has had to be increased every year to keep up with the growing demand. What people don't do is apply ridership/capacity criteria to non-subway projects in these silly internet arguments, or even in the EA process. We're spending tens of billions of dollars on GO, LRT, and other projects and nobody gives the slightest care about how many people will actually be using these lines towards their terminus points, yet people are obsessed with trying to prove that subway lines should not be extended...in part because the money should go towards projects where ridership/capacity figures towards the terminus points are not important.

My points have not been that we should not be building the subways but that other options (namely GO) should have been evaluated first. Just as you like to criticise Toronto for shoe horning their chosen LRT's everywhere, York has decided that they want a subway and have ignored any other options.

Uh, newsflash, they are improving GO. GO should have been improved years ago, but that's water under the bridge. There are no other options for the two subway extensions, and York Region has not proposed subway lines anywhere else. That's what a subway extension is...an extension of the subway line. Yonge wasn't extended north of Finch before now largely because it would be too successful.

Do you think that extending the line up to RHC will eliminate that 'ridiculous parade of buses and comical overabundance of overlapping routes'. Nope RHC will still be a hub for YRT bus routes. All you've done is move the hub.

Yes, it will eliminate the comical overabundance of overlapping routes. Less routes and far fewer buses will serve RHC...there will never be anywhere near as many buses on overlapping routes approaching RHC as there currently are north of Finch, and even though a few overlapping segments are possible as routes converge on RHC, they will not do so from the same direction as now happens along Yonge. The hub is moving but you're subtracting most of the rides and buses from it first, including all the TTC routes and whatever ends up running to the silly Steeles megaterminal.

Read my post I said 'Transit oriented development' sure there's density along Sheppard but those people are not using the subway as much as was expected. Now that may be due to the fact that it's really only half a line, but we've had the same experience along Spadina.

So development doesn't count if it's not transit-oriented, no matter how many people actually use transit. Gotcha. Yes, they are using the subway, in increasing numbers. I don't know how much the original ridership projection was inflated to make the project more appealing (this happens to every project) or if it refers to a longer Sheppard line as was planned, and neither do you. Yes, there is plenty of existing development, some TOD, and much more on the way - most of the sites developed so far have not been the ones immediately adjacent to the subway stations, though, so what do you expect? Blame the city for doing little to encourage lands at and on top of stations to develop with things like indoor transit connections, not that such measures would actually affect transit usage in the area (they wouldn't). Sheppard's and Spadina's experiences have little in common other than the fact that they both were not built long enough.

Joy, more insults. I suppose this is my cue to call you a Subway luvr who likes to draw lines all over the map saying lets put subways here and damn the costs!

Draw lines on the map? You do realize the Spadina extension is under construction, right? And that the Yonge extension has been proposed for years now? They're not exactly my ideas or my pet projects. I support about 40 cumulative additional km of subways in the entire city, including the YUS extensions.

Your comment implied that by definition all GO train riders drive to the station while by definition all riders boarding the subway at RHC will be walk up (or at worst bussed in). The RHC will not eliminate park and ride trips and thus is not a valid point in support of the extension.

No, you're way off. I'd suggest rereading but if that's what you got out of it the first time, there's really no point in going back.

I've said many times that most subway riders will still be bussed or driven in. This is true for most of the 416 and will be true for the 905, too. Walk-in rides from development are just the bonus and only form the majority of rides at suburban stations with no good bus/road connections.

When ridership projections show that demand will be far below subway standards then I say yes. We are talking about passenger demand (particularly at VCC) that could easily be handled by an LRT. Which for the same cost could probably run up Jane to Vaughan Mills/Wonderland.

And the demand for much of that LRT could easily be handled by buses. The demand for a subway extension won't exist if the line isn't extended...less development will occur, fewer spontaneous trips will be generated, fewer people will switch from their cars, fewer people and businesses will locate along the line because of transit accessibility, people will continue parking or getting dropped off at a subway station, there's less chance fare integration will occur, etc., etc. Might as well keep the buses and save the fortune in capital costs the LRT would cost.

There is no standard for a subway extension. A new line, perhaps, but not an extension. Every other transit line in the world and every other transit line in Toronto terminates at a place that's good for transferring and/or good for building a city worth living in.

Again I'll believe it when I see it. I've never seen a Wal Mart in the middle of an urban centre. They'd likely fight for a huge settlement with the gov't in order to sell the land.

A hem...
http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/newscentre/projects/steele_corridor.cfm

Steeles Ave W (Jane to Keele) plan. Granted not as grand as RHC or VCC.

What do you think is at VCC right now btw? A CAT dealership.

Putting aside the connections to the 407, Hwy 7, and Viva - which we can't do because this will account for the bulk of the riders - you'll believe VCC when you see it, but the subway should terminate at Steeles because a smaller and more far-fetched project might be built? Ahem, indeed.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Ridership projections are frequently wrong and are loaded with all kinds of bias and unpredictability...inflated to support one project, lowered to oppose another, etc. Far more people use the 190 than was originally projected and service has had to be increased every year to keep up with the growing demand. What people don't do is apply ridership/capacity criteria to non-subway projects in these silly internet arguments, or even in the EA process. We're spending tens of billions of dollars on GO, LRT, and other projects and nobody gives the slightest care about how many people will actually be using these lines towards their terminus points, yet people are obsessed with trying to prove that subway lines should not be extended...in part because the money should go towards projects where ridership/capacity figures towards the terminus points are not important.

So your saying that the VCC and RHC subway extension ridership projection were inflated to support a subway and yet still don't reach subway levels? Do you understand what you are saying?

Uh, newsflash, they are improving GO. GO should have been improved years ago, but that's water under the bridge. There are no other options for the two subway extensions, and York Region has not proposed subway lines anywhere else. That's what a subway extension is...an extension of the subway line. Yonge wasn't extended north of Finch before now largely because it would be too successful.

And as I've said before, I would have preferred if GO were looked at as a (or part of) solution rather than focussing on subways. But York wanted a subway and that's the direction that they skewed the numbers towards.

Yes, it will eliminate the comical overabundance of overlapping routes. Less routes and far fewer buses will serve RHC...there will never be anywhere near as many buses on overlapping routes approaching RHC as there currently are north of Finch, and even though a few overlapping segments are possible as routes converge on RHC, they will not do so from the same direction as now happens along Yonge. The hub is moving but you're subtracting most of the rides and buses from it first, including all the TTC routes and whatever ends up running to the silly Steeles megaterminal.

Point taken here. Though there will still be the VIVA Blue, 99 and other routes that will approach RHC from the North along Yonge.

So development doesn't count if it's not transit-oriented, no matter how many people actually use transit. Gotcha. Yes, they are using the subway, in increasing numbers. I don't know how much the original ridership projection was inflated to make the project more appealing (this happens to every project) or if it refers to a longer Sheppard line as was planned, and neither do you. Yes, there is plenty of existing development, some TOD, and much more on the way - most of the sites developed so far have not been the ones immediately adjacent to the subway stations, though, so what do you expect? Blame the city for doing little to encourage lands at and on top of stations to develop with things like indoor transit connections, not that such measures would actually affect transit usage in the area (they wouldn't). Sheppard's and Spadina's experiences have little in common other than the fact that they both were not built long enough.

To put it bluntly no. You yourself commented that the apartments in the park along Steeles and Islington, Kipling, and Martin Grove aren't exactly transit supportive. If we build density and the majority of the people are still using their cars all we've done is make the congestion worse. Do you not agree?

Draw lines on the map? You do realize the Spadina extension is under construction, right? And that the Yonge extension has been proposed for years now? They're not exactly my ideas or my pet projects. I support about 40 cumulative additional km of subways in the entire city, including the YUS extensions.

Wow you didn't pick up on the fact that I was being ironic here? Read what I was responding to (insults).

No, you're way off. I'd suggest rereading but if that's what you got out of it the first time, there's really no point in going back.

I've said many times that most subway riders will still be bussed or driven in. This is true for most of the 416 and will be true for the 905, too. Walk-in rides from development are just the bonus and only form the majority of rides at suburban stations with no good bus/road connections.

If you essentially agreed with my point then why argue it?

[/QUOTE]
And the demand for much of that LRT could easily be handled by buses. The demand for a subway extension won't exist if the line isn't extended...less development will occur, fewer spontaneous trips will be generated, fewer people will switch from their cars, fewer people and businesses will locate along the line because of transit accessibility, people will continue parking or getting dropped off at a subway station, there's less chance fare integration will occur, etc., etc. Might as well keep the buses and save the fortune in capital costs the LRT would cost.

So now you're arguing that VCC at full built out form would be adequately serviced by busses????? Yet you still think that a subway is a must?!?!?! You've just proved my point that the VCC and RHC plans exist soley to give legitimacy to the subway extensions. Way to discover sustainable development York.

There is no standard for a subway extension. A new line, perhaps, but not an extension. Every other transit line in the world and every other transit line in Toronto terminates at a place that's good for transferring and/or good for building a city worth living in.

Putting aside the connections to the 407, Hwy 7, and Viva - which we can't do because this will account for the bulk of the riders - you'll believe VCC when you see it, but the subway should terminate at Steeles because a smaller and more far-fetched project might be built? Ahem, indeed.

You've missed my point. It's not that because there is the Steeles west plan that we shouldn't be expanding to VCC it is that you said that Steeles west is a wasteland while VCC is a mecca of urbanity. Both are empty fields, parking lots and giant warehouses right now. I'll believe both developments when I see them. You just like the VCC plan because,
a: it supports your support for the Spadina extension. and
b: it actually has a name VCC and has been marketed to people as going to be this magnificent mini downtown.

You were the one that offered me the choice between the VCC and "a field with a UPS Depot". I'm pointing out that currently there is a CAT dealership on the site of the planned VCC. Either compare planned futures or present you can't say "well VCC will be amazingly urban (in a few decades), but Steeles west is a wasteland" If the subway has the ability to affect change at hwy it has the same ability to affect change at Steeles west.

And FWIW yes I am aware that CAT is planning on leaving in a few years.


Listen for the sake of the discussion I'm going to lay it out. This is how I believe a transit hierarchy should work:

Regional or commuter rail runs long distance routes in areas where local transit (and drivers) can conglomerate a similar trip (say from a bedroom community to a central city, just saying). Density is less of an issue but ideally these stations would be transit hubs with higher intensity development around them.

Subways run medium to intermediate distances in dense urban centres. Subways can overlap slightly with regional rail, but one must be careful to not create on overly long subway trip when a regional rail could do the same quicker.

LRT's and Trams fill a number of roles depending on their implementation. The can run longer distances in areas where there are stretches of medium density or they can be mini subways in areas which might not meet subway standards but are still quite dense.

Busses fill in the remainder.

With that said. Eventually there will be a need for a subway to VCC and RHC but there is also a need now and in the future for improved regional rail. We should have worked on the improved regional rail first.