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

Yup. Clark has a half decent bus route on it and a bit of density around it, unlike royal orchard. I doubt Clark will be super busy, but it's a far more feasible station than royal orchard was.

Steeles and Highway 7 will be the busiest stations I imagine (like warden or Victoria park level), with langstaff and Drewry being more mid range (think Lawrence, York mills), and Clark being "low" like rosedale or Christie.
 
Lansgtaff will have the parking lot, don't forget. A lot of people not driving to finch anymore. It may be as busy as Richmond Hill Centre, since (at least before development kicks in) that station will be entirely fed by transit. I remember the planners describing them as sort of a single station split in two, in terms of function.

Drewry and Clark will definitely be the relatively quiet ones, with some local bus feeders and a bit of density around.
 
nfitz said:
Not that I've heard. The website still clearly says "five stations at Cummer/Drewry, Steeles, Clark, Langstaff/Longbridge and Richmond Hill Centre".

http://www.vivanext.com/yonge-subway-extension/
Click to expand...

innsertnamehere said:
Yup. Clark has a half decent bus route on it and a bit of density around it, unlike royal orchard. I doubt Clark will be super busy, but it's a far more feasible station than royal orchard was.

Steeles and Highway 7 will be the busiest stations I imagine (like warden or Victoria park level), with langstaff and Drewry being more mid range (think Lawrence, York mills), and Clark being "low" like rosedale or Christie.
Click to expand...
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Lansgtaff will have the parking lot, don't forget. A lot of people not driving to finch anymore. It may be as busy as Richmond Hill Centre, since (at least before development kicks in) that station will be entirely fed by transit. I remember the planners describing them as sort of a single station split in two, in terms of function.

Drewry and Clark will definitely be the relatively quiet ones, with some local bus feeders and a bit of density around.
Click to expand...
Who are we kidding. Clark and Drewry will be empty most of the day.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
In terms of what? where's 44North when you need him?
The UGC is reverse engineered from the capacities of both systems, they serve different markets - it's all been said 50 times.
Click to expand...

As usual you couldn't resist including my screen name in your lengthy posts. Not as manically as before which is a surprise, but still.

And any word on when Markham will release more info on the "reverse engineered" Langstaff Gateway? Been looking forward to hearing more about it. Particularly the PRT pod system, which is obviously brilliant.

TheTigerMaster said:
It's been done. City Planning's network study claims that, with Relief Line Short, the Yonge Line will be running at 36,000 pphpd in 2031. That's 100% of capacity. No room for additional projects to be feeding into the Yonge Line.

The Metrolinx Yonge Relief Network Study is slightly more optimistic. They claim that the Yonge Line will be operating at 32,300 pphpd with the Relief Line Short, about 90% capacity. The YNSE, however, will bring the line to around 100% capacity, if it is built.
Click to expand...

So many reports for various projects I can't remember. But any guess why the discrepancy between the two groups' numbers (36k vs 32.3k)? And do these numbers include latent demand - i.e new ridership that will arise by a capacity increase? This is one of the things I think about with the 504 and improving King: that any net gain in speed/capacity will be lost or swamped on account of new riders who otherwise opt out of packed and slow service. But really, we know that with or without ATO/ATC, south of Bloor Yonge's practical capacity maxes out well below 36k.
 
44 North said:
So many reports for various projects I can't remember. But any guess why the discrepancy between the two groups' numbers (36k vs 32.3k)? And do these numbers include latent demand - i.e new ridership that will arise by a capacity increase?
Click to expand...

The City Planning/University of Toronto report was supposed to provide technical details at a later date: "Full documentation of the demand model system, its base year validation and its assessment by an independent peer review panel will be provided in other reports." However, I am unable to find these other reports online. I don't know if they remain unreleased, or if they're merely hard to find.

The City Planning report did explicitly mention that they took latent demand into consideration. I didn't see any mention of latent demand in Metrolinx's YRNS Technical Report, but that does not mean it was not considered. Failing to take latent demand into consideration would be an amateur mistake, so I expect that the YRNS took it into consideration as well.

In any event, the Yonge + Relief Line Short ridership forecasts by both reports are fully in line with each other. 32.3k vs 36k isn't a huge difference. At best, it means that in in 2031 the Yonge Line will be only a few years of being over capacity, regardless of whether YNSE is built (of course, YNSE would push Yonge over capacity a few years sooner). At worse, it means that in 2031, the Yonge Line will be at or above capacity, even without YNSE. Either way, the Relief Line Long would need to be built at the same time or before the YNSE.
 
44 North said:
As usual you couldn't resist including my screen name in your lengthy posts. Not as manically as before which is a surprise, but still.
Click to expand...

I made a harmless (I thought) joke. I didn't tag you and your "contribution" is not constructive, helpful or otherwise furthering the current discussion.

While, yes, it would be utterly fascinating for all to see Markham "release more info" about a Secondary Plan, for an area where development has not yet begun (as one does!), your "jokes" about pods and the like aren't of much value.

TigerMaster answered the closest thing you had to a substantive question. Contribution noted. Return to hibernation and dream well of pods, old friend.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Not that I've heard. The website still clearly says "five stations at Cummer/Drewry, Steeles, Clark, Langstaff/Longbridge and Richmond Hill Centre".
Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me. The distance from Cummer to Bishop is similar to the distance from College to Dundas. Why put in downtown-like stop spacing there but then leave a gap of nearly 3 km on Yonge?
 
amnesiajune said:
This makes no sense to me. The distance from Cummer to Bishop is similar to the distance from College to Dundas. Why put in downtown-like stop spacing there but then leave a gap of nearly 3 km on Yonge?
Click to expand...

Are you asking why no Royal Orchard? The 5-stop plan makes sense to me. Drewry gives Toronto a second new stop and ensures contiguous intensification along Yonge. Royal Orchard has some apartments but one side of Yonge is valley and there is limited potential for new development.

P.s. Hey, Salsa, these guys have been in the news this morning. No one told them that the 905 and 416 are competing for jobs etc.
https://torontoglobal.ca/
https://torontoglobal.ca/
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Who are we kidding. Clark and Drewry will be empty most of the day.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. I'm in the Yonge and Cummer area frequently, and that area is reasonably busy all hours of the day. There are a lot of nearby apartment buildings and the stores in the area get quite a bit of traffic. I don't think ridership would be extraordinarily high, but it should be average for stations outside the downtown area.

Plus the nearby strip malls are ripe for redevelopment, and I'm sure we'd see condos replace them if there were a subway station there.
 
muller877 said:
Rosedale bad? Or Bessarian bad?
Click to expand...
The Conceptual Design Report indicated the peak-hour arrivals and departures in both directions were 340 passengers, compared to 870 at Clark and 2,070 at Cummer. It also notes that Bessarion (which they note is the least-used station on the entire TTC subway system) was 540.

So neither are Bessarion bad (though Royal Orchard would have been worse).

If that can scale to daily, then it's about 3,800 for Clark and 9,100 for Cummer. This would make Clark the second-most unused subway station (ignoring the SRT). Cummer however would exceed Rosedale by about 50% and would rank somewhere between Bayview and High Park.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top