News   Jun 24, 2021
 472     0 
News   Jun 24, 2021
 703     1 
News   Jun 24, 2021
 634     0 

TTC: Yonge North Subway Extension (Finch-Richmond Hill) (Funded/Planned)

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,595
Reaction score
2,313
Chiming in late, from what I recall reading, there is an island bus loop planned for Cummer/Drewry for both routes to service west of Yonge. So, I think they may remain separate... likely interline, with some exceptions due to the differences in ridership. But yes, anything for Finch to access would be by subway or Yonge bus at that point.

Plus the Finch buses or Finch LRT.

Btw, Drewry bus route is very short, only about 3 km each way from Yonge & Drewry. Full interlining will be OK, even if the demand on the Drewry section is a bit lower than east of Yonge.
 

11th

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
881
Reaction score
336
Plus the Finch buses or Finch LRT.

Btw, Drewry bus route is very short, only about 3 km each way from Yonge & Drewry. Full interlining will be OK, even if the demand on the Drewry section is a bit lower than east of Yonge.
They can also stagger route branches: Bathurst to Kennedy, Yonge to Middlefield.
(I know the Yonge to Kennedy branch no longer exists)
 

TDE

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2011
Messages
26
Reaction score
11
Plus the Finch buses or Finch LRT.

Btw, Drewry bus route is very short, only about 3 km each way from Yonge & Drewry. Full interlining will be OK, even if the demand on the Drewry section is a bit lower than east of Yonge.
I would surmise only during the rush, every other or third bus will be turned back if full separation is the course. Off-peak can and should work itself out in the scheduling/frequency detail, where a few minutes' adjustment could be a thing, here and there, to standardize the interlining.

They can also stagger route branches: Bathurst to Kennedy, Yonge to Middlefield.
(I know the Yonge to Kennedy branch no longer exists)
Probably the Victoria Park/Gordon Baker branch would be the closest for this idea, but it's a ghost town out there outside of work hours (sans-COVID). But definitely could see that instead for the peak periods.
 
Last edited:

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,654
Reaction score
11,680
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth

allengeorge

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
758
Reaction score
1,683
Is not pretty reading. Basically, half the stations cut (most of which in Toronto). Routing changed, and will serve fewer riders. No positive business case.

EDIT: Got one station wrong, so 1 in Toronto, 2 in York Region. My bad :(
 
Last edited:

turini2

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
209
Reaction score
763
Location
London, UK
Screenshot 2021-03-18 at 12.15.21.png

A rough rough mockup by me. I wonder if Doug is angling for York Region to cough up the funds if they want more stations!
The plan specifies that the three stations originally proposed as Cummer, Clark and Royal Orchard will not all be built. The Metrolinx report ... said only one could make the cut.
There would also be an underground station at Steeles Avenue and surface-level ones at Highway 7 and about 400 metres north of the highway, near a street called High Tech Road.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
12,746
Reaction score
21,958
Location
Toronto/EY
Globe and Mail article on this here:


The business case for this line, in the near term is to Steeles, with a Cummer Station.

The cut, would be to slim down the bloat of the Steeles bus terminal.

Once you go north of Steeles, the business case is almost certainly better sticking to Yonge, and with more stations, predicated on the assumption that future density justifies the investment.

The diversion will not assist in that regard.

I would argue for a slow-build (going in order, one station at a time, through to Steeles or Clark), with an extension option on the contract to go further subject to budget.

Its the same argument I would make for the R/L (Ontario Line) which I would still prefer the original concept of, built from Osgoode to Danforth, with an extension option to go north to Don Mills/Eg if the project is on budget.

Continuous build is cheaper, but buy it in bite-sized chunks.

That's how large portion of Line 1 and 2 got done.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
2,918
Reaction score
1,107
All very interesting. It says "3 or 4 stations in total," so you have to figure they'll still try to do one of the three smaller stations. I'd guess Clark, due to the transit connectivity and centrality but clearly that's still TBD. Maybe that one development sells them on Royal Orchard? [Cummer seems like the real stinker if you have to choose, but again, who knows?] What's clear is they were given a price envelope, told they had to build Steeles and the final 2 stations and avoid going under the cemetery and see what else you can do within the budget.

That alignment map above probably isn't too far off except it likely doesn't cut east that far south if Royal Orchard is even remotely still under consideration. They wouldn't veer off Yonge until they have to, if for no other reason than to preserve the possibility of future stations. Either way, it's going to cut under the residential area and one might expect that between that and the loss of stations, some Markham/York Region people won't be thrilled.

The two above-ground stations kind of make sense and it can actually be good for Langstaff to be shifted to the centre of the development instead of way out on the Yonge side. And since they talked about decking over the rail corridor, it would be "above ground" but still potentially "underground" for the development.They must be losing the parking or have some clever solution there but I guess big parking lots shouldn't be the selling point for any of these stations.

Despite the end of that article, I don't think it will substantially undermine development projects in York Region. Even if there's no station at Clark, development's going to come along the whole corridor, from Steeles up. Royal Orchard is the one station where that makes a difference and I haven't been convinced that one makes sense anyway.

I look forward to seeing the details on Tuesday.

The business case for this line, in the near term is to Steeles, with a Cummer Station.

The cut, would be to slim down the bloat of the Steeles bus terminal.

I'm long on record saying this makes no sense and I think that's even clearer. The line ONLY makes sense if you get development at Highway 7. The economy of scale of digging to Steeles to build 2 stations, one of which is already walking distance of the terminal is just not there.

The extra development uptake at Clark and Royal Orchard is obviously a factor but it's minimal compared to the mega-density at Highway 7 and that's why the business case is there, and has always been there, even if the only stops are Steeles and 7. Even if my opinion were wrong, that's what the Metrolinx report is going to say.

EDIT - per what I said above, this didn't take long!
(In fairness, if I lived in this neighbourhood, especially with the limited information these news reports, I'd also be wondering how the hell they're digging a subway under my neighbourhood.)
1616071592648.png
 
Last edited:

turini2

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
209
Reaction score
763
Location
London, UK
I think the Langstaff / hwy 7 station will be on the south side of the 407. If its on the north side then they should just move the high-tech station up to 16th.
There's nothing south of the 407 other than industrial lands, the cemetery and a hydro corridor. North of the 407 @ Highway 7 would likely be an interchange with Langstaff GO.

Agreed that a station further north sounds like a better idea...
Screenshot 2021-03-18 at 12.37.19.png
 

Top