The numbers are there now. You were asking about something different -- density along Yonge Street.
Nope. We should be firing on all cylinders. Your beggar-thy-neighbour approach to transit planning doesn't work.
This isn't about east Markham, which just isn't relevant to the Yonge Subway Extension. And yes, commuters desire actual points off Yonge St.
Run that by me again? Bathurst LRT? What route [EDIT: i.e. what endpoints for this planned Bathurst LRT]?
For "Bathurst" you mean "Dufferin", and for "Vaughan City Centre" you mean "one of the new stations on the Spadina extension", right?
Huh? No. Steeles makes very little sense as a terminus -- how did you arrive at the conclusion that it did? Continuing 4 km north to the GO/VIVA-YRT terminal at Hwy 7/407 will serve far better.
First of all, what I'm proposing is the epitome of
firing on all cylinders. I never said we shouldn't extend the Yonge Subway. In the history of all Toronto subway extensions though, they have been built in PHASES. Examine the history of the University-Spadina and Bloor-Danforth Lines' expansions. YUS has seen four additions plus an infill, same number as B-D. If Phase 1.0 were to theoretically stop at Steeles Avenue and comprise the below-grade megaterminal AND be greeted by an LRT corridor right across the platform; running up the median of Yonge St, not only stopping at RHC but continuing onwards to 19th/Gamble; then a significant effort towards efficient rapid transit through Thornhill/Richmond Hill would still be met. And this wouldn't pervent an extension to Highway 7 in the future either when demand warrants it.
I'm hearing all y'all are saying about riders west of Kennedy that's go to RHC, but there's no reason why a Don Mills LRT couldn't route straight into the Beaver Creek area (post-fare integration YRT/TTC reality of course) and a Warden LRT (TCII) to route directly into Downtown Markham, even wying into Unionville Stn. So if Don Mills feeds into the DRL from Eglinton, that's another viable alternate route Markhamites could utilize in order to get downtown. So I get don't the
Beggar-Thy-Neighbour analogy since all these extensions (even stopping at Steeles Ave) are geared to do waaaaaaay more for York Region than it does Torontonians, with less residents to serve yet costing the 416 folk more in raised costs-to-ride.
As for Bathurst, think:
Transit City Phase II. I came up with the idea when people kept suggesting a Sheppard West subway extension to intercept Bathurst, the only valid intermediate stop. Seeing as Bathurst/Steeles, Bathurst/Finch and Bathurst/Sheppard have decent high-rise devlopments surrounding those intersections and Bathurst/Centre has all that plus a highly-trafficked commercial-retail nexus, it kinda makes sense. U2 and others talked about it in the other thread too, that essentially the 160 becomes a LRT route through to Wilson Stn then continue onwards southbound along Dufferin Street to the CNE. The 7 bus then only operates between Bloor and Wilson reducing waittimes. Obviously cusomers wouldn't necessarily stay on-board the entire trip duration given the length, but it'd certainly reduce travel times between Promenade, other LRT crosstowns and the subway.
While I disagree with the VCC extension ("City" sounds better than "Corporate", so sue me) it's already in the process of being built (has anything expropiation/digging wise occured on the Vaughan side yet, BTW?) and further puts limitations on just how many long-haul commuters a RHC extension would net; since all Bramalea, Gore, Kleinburg, Woodbridge, Pine Valley, Maple and Concord commuters would feed into it. So I stand by my statement of west of the Promenade residents feeding into the Spadina subway.
Which leads into my last point:
You asked me why Steeles and then made a case on how weak it'd be as a terminii. Okay, then why is a 30 bus-bay, $195 million dollar state-of-the-art underground bus and train station facility being built there? Why is it that more bus routes would converge at this point than all of north-of-Steeles section which would only get mainly VIVA routes? The undevelopable heritage community of Old Thornhill which lies smack in the middle of the subway's path is a valid reason to question the need for this, as evidenced by the whopping 2.2km gap in-between Clark and Royal Orchard Stn, the latter of which may not even be built right away, so add in another km lapse. So basically, IMO, we are attempting to do with the Yonge Subway something that isn't the true orientation nor purpose of metro subway lines: re-create a GO train corridor
underground. And at $300M/km to boot. Meanwhile riders trying to board trains through Toronto suffer. That's why I'm skeptical about meandering further and further into the suburbs.
So in conclusion, I shudder at the thought of evey other compatible preexisting, densely populated cluster of high-rise residential & commerical buildings all across the GTA that
isn't getting its own multibillion dollar subway line... because by the line of thinking I've happened across here, they'd be all worthy and justified to get one.