News   Jul 05, 2022
 509     6 
News   Jul 05, 2022
 987     3 
News   Jul 05, 2022
 1.3K     1 

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

asher__jo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
472
Reaction score
687
I don't think its that simple. You see there are 2 schools of thought here: One suggests like you that planning should be done in a very messy and slow democratic process, meanwhile others believe that we are so behind transit, that we need to abandon this democratic bs and just get stuff done. Now tell me, to the broad voter base, what is more appealing? The idea of slowly planning out transit projects that come out at a leaky pace, or announcing that you are ramming through 4 subway projects and are actually getting things done? The only people that are mad about the MZOs are A) A vocal minority of the local communities, and B) Angry Star Readers. Almost everyone else doesn't really care.
Planning doesn't require messiness, but adequately consulting citizens is critical to buy in from the public (I am not construing pandering to NIMBY's as consulting). There must be good faith attempts to address concerns, but Metrolinx/the Ontario government has shown to be using consultation as a cover for ways to ram decisions through. I am not saying I know what a reasonable tradeoff between expediency and consultation is, but MZO's are definitely not it.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,755
This is a companion piece (same reporter) to the previous article. I think it hits on a key point which is that it's not just that Markham or the residents are opposed to density (Though obviously that's a factor). It's also that the TOC areas were supposed to have a balance of residents and jobs (allegedly what Provincial policy requires!) and the proposed plans cut the jobs to lean on easier-to-build residential development. So it's not just the height/density but the character of the proposals that's at issue.

This is harder to frame as a NIMBY issue...

1645456944821.png


(I guess this should be cross-posted to the Bridge and High Tech TOC threads but it's hard to keep it all in one place and it's all tied together...)

 

Disparishun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
600
Reaction score
44
Finch is about the same or slightly more expensive when factoring in the YRT fare (or parking) to get to the station.

But yes, it's slightly ironic RH GO in its current form is being pushed as an alternative to Line 1. This would only entrench GO's downtown focus when we're trying so hard to leave this model behind.

This line is just a bit of an odd duck because of the track ownership and flooding issues. You think the Line 1 extension is expensive, wait till you see the bill for making GO RH a true 2WAD line on par with the subway.
I'm not on here very much any more and this may have been beaten to death, but in case it hasn't been --

Rather than an alternative to the Line 1 extension, wouldn't the RH line be better renovated as (a) the northern half of the Ontario line, with a smooth interchange at Eglinton, provided (b) much better physical, fare, and local traffic-sink integration at Finch (OC-39; Newnham) and Sheppard (Oriole-Leslie; NY General)?

That sidesteps the wonkiness from Eglinton on south and maintains high-capacity north-south transit connecting to some of the city's busier routes. And how much slower would the Ontario line be at completing the southern half of the trip, for those going all the way to Union -- a diminishing number as the city becomes more polycentric, I have to assume?

(That also assumes some things about the ability to do physical and fare integration, I know, but the alternatives seem so much worse in terms of stranded infrastructure.)
 
Last edited:

denfromoakvillemilton

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
7,077
Reaction score
1,069
Location
Former City of York, Ontario, Canada

Also…



Amazing. Every municipality in the GTA: we want transit, but we don’t want density.

I will say that some of the comments are reasonable: obviously Markham doesn’t want its nodes to turn into bedroom communities, wants more parkland, and we don’t have a good track record for large master-planned developments. But, if you ask for a deep-ass station to appease a few homeowners you pay the price elsewhere. Thems the breaks.
Tell them to shut up and let's get moving. The denser the better.

They want the subway, they better get used to towers. And walking.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
4,830
Reaction score
2,791
I'm not on here very much any more and this may have been beaten to death, but in case it hasn't been --

Rather than an alternative to the Line 1 extension, wouldn't the RH line be better renovated as (a) the northern half of the Ontario line, with a smooth interchange at Eglinton, provided (b) much better physical, fare, and local traffic-sink integration at Finch (OC-39; Newnham) and Sheppard (Oriole-Leslie; NY General)?

That sidesteps the wonkiness from Eglinton on south and maintains high-capacity north-south transit connecting to some of the city's busier routes. And how much slower would the Ontario line be at completing the southern half of the trip, for those going all the way to Union -- a diminishing number as the city becomes more polycentric, I have to assume?

(That also assumes some things about the ability to do physical and fare integration, I know, but the alternatives seem so much worse in terms of stranded infrastructure.)

That could work, with a number of changes to the overall plan:
1) Ontario Line would need to be designed for a greater capacity, to match its greater length and larger catchment area. Preferably, it would have to be built with mainline rail technology.
2) Residents living along the northern section of the Bala sub not being too much against the greatly increased surface train frequency. Perhaps not every OL train would have to continue north of Eglinton, but just every 2-nd or 3-rd, but even that is a massive increase over the today's train frequency.
3) The diamond between the Bala sub and York sub grade-separated, and more tracks added north of York sub, so that the OL - Richmond Hill service doesn't conflict with the CN freight mainlines.
4) Something done for the section of Richmond Hill GO service north of Hwy 7; either electrified all the way to Gormley, or a few dual-mode trains included in the fleet.

So, a good idea but it is probably too late.
 

Disparishun

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
600
Reaction score
44
That could work, with a number of changes to the overall plan:
1) Ontario Line would need to be designed for a greater capacity, to match its greater length and larger catchment area. Preferably, it would have to be built with mainline rail technology.
2) Residents living along the northern section of the Bala sub not being too much against the greatly increased surface train frequency. Perhaps not every OL train would have to continue north of Eglinton, but just every 2-nd or 3-rd, but even that is a massive increase over the today's train frequency.
3) The diamond between the Bala sub and York sub grade-separated, and more tracks added north of York sub, so that the OL - Richmond Hill service doesn't conflict with the CN freight mainlines.
4) Something done for the section of Richmond Hill GO service north of Hwy 7; either electrified all the way to Gormley, or a few dual-mode trains included in the fleet.

So, a good idea but it is probably too late.
Fair but, in truth, the idea I'm floating is a bit different: two lines. One is the Ontario Line whose northern terminus is at Eglinton. The other is the RH line whose southern terminus would now be at Eglinton. You'd need good physical integration for those continuing on in either direction.

The downside is, obviously, transforming a one-seat ride into a two-segment one. But the benefit would be far greater flexibility for those riders, along with an approach that is viable long-term.
 

duffo

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 17, 2020
Messages
44
Reaction score
176
Fair but, in truth, the idea I'm floating is a bit different: two lines. One is the Ontario Line whose northern terminus is at Eglinton. The other is the RH line whose southern terminus would now be at Eglinton. You'd need good physical integration for those continuing on in either direction.

The downside is, obviously, transforming a one-seat ride into a two-segment one. But the benefit would be far greater flexibility for those riders, along with an approach that is viable long-term.
I think the much easier version of this plan is to instead have the OL-GO interchange at Oriole-Leslie, with the OL extended up to the station through the RH corridor north of Eglinton.
 

Transportfan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
667
The NIMBY snobs want the rapid transit but don't want the needed density that would support it. They want to have their rural estate as they drink their Mint Julep under the shade of their large oak trees, looking over their green, green grass.

Considering the line is at capacity, limiting density along the extension may be a good move.
 

TJ O'Pootertoot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
3,149
Reaction score
1,755
It's a Catch 22 but we're 100 years too late from keeping development away from Yonge Street.
There was a meeting last week on Markham's eventual Secondary Plan for Yonge-Steeles and you don't have to be a math expert to and see that between their plans and Vaughan's and Toronto's, you're talking about close to 100,000 people along the corridor, before you even get to the Bridge and High Tech sites, which (once you include the rest of RHC and LG) will be another 100k.

We can talk Ontario Line scenarios all day long, and - as has been discussed here before - going up Don Mills (roughly) to the 404/7 employment node would have some big benefits but the horse has left the barn on Yonge Street. Sit back and enjoy the ride (but not on the subway; you probably won't get a seat).
 

asher__jo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
472
Reaction score
687
We'll need short turn trains in the morning rush on the Yonge Line 1, when its extended into Richmond Hill. Maybe at the Steeles Station? So that passengers from Steeles and south could get on the trains?
I could eventually see the case where morning rush hour trains operate express, skipping some stations.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,120
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
We would need to build a ton of passing loops and express track for that to remotely work.
Or platform screen doors which would not open for bypassing trains. Currently, see "out-of-service" trains bypass stations, but at a slow speed. With truly "express" trains, they'll need to run at full speed through bypassing stations.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
701
Reaction score
1,321
Or platform screen doors which would not open for bypassing trains. Currently, see "out-of-service" trains bypass stations, but at a slow speed. With truly "express" trains, they'll need to run at full speed through bypassing stations.
They would still need to pass the local trains.
 

Top