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

[44 North]

I would disagree with them if they thought it would effectively relieve Bloor-Yonge station, and provide higher-order transit to Flemingdon Park.

Well, your opinion is the same as mine in that a preferable scenario would be to have RH interlined with an underground DRL and have the whole thing financed and fast-tracked. But that didn’t really answer the question though. If such an RH diversion were to happen, a likely scenario would be that it intersects the Crosstown above-grade, and just east of Leslie (IOW: no opportunity for Flemingdon service). As well, how it meets with Broadview (if it were to) would probably be done affordably and in-line with its surface routing and RER service. This would most likely entail some kind of enclosed 250m pedestrian connection between the Don Branch, over the DVP, and linking under Broadview Stn. These things considered, would it make sense for this RH RER surface line/Don Branch diversion to have a station at that Thorncliffe site? Or perhaps no station at Thorncliffe, but rather one at the former Leaside Station site near Millwood/Village Station Rd?

Again, this is a realistic question and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if come springtime this will be presented by Metrolinx and become a real discussion on this site. Obviously a conventional DRL is way more optimal; but I think there will be several options. And although a DRL won’t be ruled out, I believe this RH RER/Don Branch diversion will be presented as a near-term objective. That’s at least my reasoned deduction.

@TJ
My use of the word “unimpressive” wasn’t because the buildings weren’t tall enough. It was more the fact that the site looked very suburban, auto-centric, out of character, and sterile. Granted, it was a crude rendering. But still, height means little to me. Stand around Sheppard east of Yonge (or Yonge north of Sheppard) on a cold winter day, next to an eight lane arterial and empty sidewalks, and you probably won’t be thinking things like ‘dynamic’ or ‘world class’.

And yeah, you’re right that all the developers are ready to go and that Markham is dreaming big. But again, that means very little. Office and condo projects stall, developers go into receivership, plans fall apart. And just like what Neptis continually stressed: jobs are hard to locate. Look at Canary Wharf in London. The project worked, but it was iffy and there was much trouble along the way. And that’s prime waterfront in LONDON! Another interesting point about Canary Wharf is that they planned around a mode I’ve continually been trying to promote: grade-separated light rail.

I would like others to read those points I highlighted from Neptis on the previous page to understand that things are not always guaranteed. ‘Dreaming big’ means spending big. And in this particular instance with Yonge's capacity issues and a Prov that seems to be behind on its promises and financing, means will be waiting big. And @TJ, your points are good and discussion-worthy, I’ll probably write another comment in due course (i.e not in the next few days).

 

[salsa]

So why exactly were you expecting development at Thorncliffe Park that would justify your proposed DRL alignment, but when it comes to Yonge now you are being all cautious?

With my Don Line, the alignment is already there. It's called the Don Branch. I only added a station at Thorncliffe because it seems logical and is within walking distance of the neighbourhood of TP. But again, the alignment is very much in existence, and the corridor is most definitely owned by Metrolinx. And I'm quite certain it's being looked at closely for an RH diversion (as it's been looked at by GO in the past for the same purpose).

Sorry, but my point was that you claimed that your DRL has superior development potential compared to the traditional one in large part due to Thorncliffe Park...

The traditional DRL puts the line where density already is (to some extent...some of those sites aren’t all that “high-density”, nor will they ever be). Whereas my Don Line puts stations where intensification is going to be, and could logically be. The Coca Cola site alone could theoretically be a mammoth development.

IIRC our discussion about this Thornclife Stn – and comparing it to other TTC stations like Kipling – is that properties around it can be rezoned, upzoned, and developed; and that the station can still be very much used.

...but when it comes to Yonge, you say:

Meh. Overly ambitious top-down planning which more than likely won’t come anywhere close to the expected employment, population, transit mode share numbers. Similar to other “centres”

The majority of those commuters will probably end up driving. NYCC, ECC, STC, VMC, RHC. Lots of centres, lots of flawed studies, lots of scarce capital spent, lots of real priorities ignored.

Double standards. Ya, your Thorncliffe/industrial Park station will be well used because the city will go against their own official plan by rezoning employment lands and unemploying a bunch of people. And that's assuming that 40 storey condo and office towers will be popping up like dandelions next to a hydro ROW and CP switching yard, unlike those failed city centres you mention. On Yonge however, every subway extension over the past 60 years has brought tons of development and new ridership, without exception. Nowadays we talk about extending the subway to Richmond Hill, where development there is almost a sure thing just as we've seen on every other part of Yonge. To which you say "meh, bad investment". Says you.

 

[44 North]

@Salsa
That’s not really a fair comparison. I still stand by my point that my alignment would allow for more large-scale development than the conventional DRL (i.e – a circuitous and disjointed line through Leslieville, Riverdale, south EY, and an already-developed Thorncliffe and Flemingdon). Just last night I watched a Global piece on opposition to 3-storey developments in south EY.

Funnily enough, this is one of the reasons why I think the conventional DRL will forever be on the back-burner: it has nowhere near the development potential as suburban lines/extensions (e.g VMC, RHC, NYCC, STC, etc). In the last fifty years (?) the biggest development in the quadrant south of Danforth and east of Broadview was a subdivision of single-family homes at the old horse track. I think River St and its highrises / highrise proposals / gargantuan Regent Park redevelopment; enormous Redway Rd Loblaws site and its lack of any nearby potential NIMBYs; and decaying manufacturing and derelict mammoth Coca Cola building (with its nearest neighbours being mammoth hydro pylons) – if serviceable by a high-frequency metro/RER/subway - would all prove to be bigger developments than whatever has been seen (and will be seen) south of Danforth north of Eastern.

Yes, I’ll question whether RHC is worthy of an extension of Y/U-S. But that doesn’t mean I doubt there will be any development larger than a suburban-style subdivision. As for my Don Line, it’s quite clear that it’s an affordable proposal that utilizes the surface as much as it can. I can’t say the same for an all-underground extension of Yonge.

 

[BMO]

I’ve been mulling on replying to the bombardment a couple days ago. Felt I didn’t need to rush it, but here are a few points to get out of the way:

On a given weekday, all of Viva seems to carry the equivalent of the 512 streetcar on St Clair. That’s pretty low. And the 30km Viva Blue (the busiest route) carries, what, ~18,000? As well it seems that Viva and Blue appear to have lost some ridership between 2012 and 2013. And yet we’re to somehow believe that in 15 years a subway b/n Finch and 7 will supposedly carry 10x all of Viva Blue’s current ridership, and have ~19,000 s/b peak at Steeles?

This dip can be attributed to the huge YRT union strike that stopped service for a bunch of months between Fall of 2011 and Early winter 2012. Typically you're going to get more people to use transit during the winter since they have less options like walking, biking or taking vacation. There was also a fare increase in 2013 which would push ridership down even further. Overall, This dip in ridership isn't simply because it can't service people, it's more to do with the fact that YRT has been having a marketing nightmare the past few years to PAY for all these capital improvements. It's got one of the most ambitious fare-split ratios for almost any suburb in North America at 50/50 and is also one of the largest geographical areas that any transit agency in Canada operates.

Furthermore, a dip in ridership on VIVA Blue could also be attributed to the fact that the commute is so long, people have given-up on even trying to take it. Not saying you're necessarily wrong, but I'd be interested if there was a decrease in the specific portion of Yonge south of Hwy 7 or if it was a general trend taking into account all of the stops.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

@TJ
My use of the word “unimpressive” wasn’t because the buildings weren’t tall enough. It was more the fact that the site looked very suburban, auto-centric, out of character, and sterile. Granted, it was a crude rendering. But still, height means little to me. Stand around Sheppard east of Yonge (or Yonge north of Sheppard) on a cold winter day, next to an eight lane arterial and empty sidewalks, and you probably won’t be thinking things like ‘dynamic’ or ‘world class’.

This hurts my brain but you understand the renderings of Langstaff and RHC and of Yonge (in Markham, Vaughan and Toronto) were all MASSING MODELS not architectural renderings, right? OK, I could have been more precise in my terminology but I thought it was clear they represented block patterns, zoned heights etc. and not what the community will "really look like." The street patterns, particularly in RHC and Langstaff, are not remotely suburban and while the ground-level details elude me at the present moment, I don't know that there is a single, single-detached home in either plan. That probably goes for the corridors too though, understandably, there are plans there to concentrate density on Yonge and transition down to the mature neighbourhoods.

None of the redevelopment in this corridor will be remotely suburban because, as I said, it's not economically possible. The world will have gone topsy-turvy indeed if a private developer who owns a strip mall on Yonge Street, now zoned for 25-storey mixed-use, he asks the city if he could just put a dozen townhomes there instead.

And I don't count Sheppard east of Yonge as NYCC (certainly not mature NYCC), especially on a "Cold winter night." But go to Yonge and Empress on a warm Saturday night and then tell me it's not dynamic, pedestrian-friendly or urban. Silliness.

 

[Translude15]

Yes, I’ll question whether RHC is worthy of an extension of Y/U-S. But that doesn’t mean I doubt there will be any development larger than a suburban-style subdivision. As for my Don Line, it’s quite clear that it’s an affordable proposal that utilizes the surface as much as it can. I can’t say the same for an all-underground extension of Yonge.

Your Don Line is laughable as many have already ripped it to shreds in the DRL thread. Seriously, that alignment likens it to a billion dollar amusement park ride. Maybe Canada's Wonderland could open up a downtown location.

 

[44 North]

Your Don Line is laughable as many have already ripped it to shreds in the DRL thread. Seriously, that alignment likens it to a billion dollar amusement park ride. Maybe Canada's Wonderland could open up a downtown location.

You wrote the exact same thing not too long ago. Recall this map? See the line on it? See the Leaside station? See what it says in the map's note:

Metropolitan Council supports a diversion of the Richmond Hill GO line to accommodate future GO stations at Eglinton Ave/Don Mills Rd and the East York Intermediate Centre. The specific diversion route will be determined by an EA study to be initiated by GO Transit.

Is that "laughable"? Recall the other maps I showed from Metrolinx's relief study that acknowledged this very same route? And acknowledged using the valley in some manner? Recall Transit City Phase II and the DMLRT? Now combine this map's route with a tunnel through downtown, and you pretty much get exactly what I presented: my Don Line proposal. Again, the Don Branch exists. It's been there for over a century. GO wanted it to divert RH, Metrolinx now owns it. A tunnel through downtown makes sense, and interlining a DRL with RH also makes sense.

The only thing that's laughable are people who think money grows on trees, and that the conventional DRL (whatever that even is) is a 100% guarantee. A Queen subway has been delayed by a hundred years. Much of the city, the Prov, and the Feds wouldn't mind if it were delayed by another century.

 

[Translude15]

You wrote the exact same thing not too long ago. Recall this map? See the line on it? See the Leaside station? See what it says in the map's note:


Is that "laughable"? Recall the other maps I showed from Metrolinx's relief study that acknowledged this very same route? And acknowledged using the valley in some manner? Recall Transit City Phase II and the DMLRT? Now combine this map's route with a tunnel through downtown, and you pretty much get exactly what I presented: my Don Line proposal. Again, the Don Branch exists. It's been there for over a century. GO wanted it to divert RH, Metrolinx now owns it. A tunnel through downtown makes sense, and interlining a DRL with RH also makes sense.

The only thing that's laughable are people who think money grows on trees, and that the conventional DRL (whatever that even is) is a 100% guarantee. A Queen subway has been delayed by a hundred years. Much of the city, the Prov, and the Feds wouldn't mind if it were delayed by another century.

So re-fabricating a graphical representation of a 20 year old transit plan is your idea of a legitimate routing for a downtown subway line that will arguably be the most important infrastructural investment for the system this century?

As others have pointed out, cutting corners on that route for the sake of reducing the overall cost, despite the fact that you're already spending billions on said route, is incredibly shortsighted.

And yet here you are, dismissing the countless, verifiable reasons as to why a northward extension on Yonge into York region is justifiable. It's literally like you're living in la-la land. Like who are you? Do you work for Metrolinx? Are you a transit expert? An urban planner? Because maybe we're all missing something here.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

44 North I think it's time to give it up. I stayed out of this all week but really, it's time. Clearly there is support for it, at least on this board.


Now will metrolinx actually build this is another question. I think they are the ones who want to stop at steeles, given that was what was in the budget.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

44 North I think it's time to give it up. I stayed out of this all week but really, it's time. Clearly there is support for it, at least on this board.


Now will metrolinx actually build this is another question. I think they are the ones who want to stop at steeles, given that was what was in the budget.

I wouldn't say Metrolinx wants it. They're just working within the provided budget.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I wouldn't say Metrolinx wants it. They're just working within the provided budget.

Which is why they're trying to cheat and end this at Steeles

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I wouldn't say Metrolinx wants it. They're just working within the provided budget.

I believe it is fair to say that is more accurate. If it goes to Steeles it will be because of money. Will see if Stephen "The Economy is Tanking and I Need to Hold the 905" Harper will have anything to say about that...I'm not optimistic (and, despite my hope of funding, don't like such political games) but it IS an election year. I'm sure there's some interesting stuff going on behind the scenes...the Transpo Minister is from Vaughan, York Region has a new chairperson....could be some interesting movement, one way or another, before 2015 is out.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I believe it is fair to say that is more accurate. If it goes to Steeles it will be because of money. Will see if Stephen "The Economy is Tanking and I Need to Hold the 905" Harper will have anything to say about that...I'm not optimistic (and, despite my hope of funding, don't like such political games) but it IS an election year. I'm sure there's some interesting stuff going on behind the scenes...the Transpo Minister is from Vaughan, York Region has a new chairperson....could be some interesting movement, one way or another, before 2015 is out.

Del Luca is too busy trying to build the superhighway from Milton to Vaughan. And he already got his subway.

 

[44 North]

honestly, I've tried to wash my hands of this thread. But people continue to ridicule/misinterpret/falsely discredit my past posts, or bring up my fantasy map (which has no relation to Yonge North).

And at Transdude, I'll reply to your post and the "rollercoaster" thing. But I'll probably put it in the DRL or Fantasy Map thread.

 

[jaycola]

What would be the cost savings of extending the line to Hwy 7 with an initial 3 stops? One at Steeles and one at Hwy 7 and one at Langstaff? I understand there would be a need for some sort of transport mode from Clark to Steeles and the parking at Longbridge to Langstaff (underground moving sidewalks?). Would a 3 station extension be good enough for the time being?