minilude
Active Member
Yes I've edited the "will never be" clause.
Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
There are several straw men/errors in here.
Yes, obviously the $3B-ish estimate for this line has gone up. But that has nothing to do with Scarborough's costs. That's a far deeper tunnel in an entirely different geographical context. It's apples and oranges. I would guess the Yonge estimates are in the $5-$6B range now, but that's just a guess.
Your station assumptions are also way off base, not entirely surprisingly.
Royal Orchard was axed long ago.
Cummer is highly unlikely to be axed simply because Toronto isn't going through all this for just one new station.
And there is ZERO chance that Langstaff will be axed. The planning regards it as a dual station with RHC; it's where all the commuter parking will be (there is not a single space planned at RHC, Steeles, Cummer or Clark) . I forget how many are at Langstaff but well over 1,000; almost as much of Finch, where it will become a lot easier to park.
OH, and it's essential to developing the western half of the Markham Growth Centre.
So, your entire scenario here is incorrect. But let's proceed anyway.
Again, this scenario you're laying out is somewhere between highly improbable and impossible. It's like me adding 5 mythical stations to the SSE so we can compare apples to apples. Makes it hard for me to sincerely answer your forthcoming question, but I will try.
OK, first another straw man. I do NOT use "growth and future development" as the single justification for the subway. And I've certainly never invoked anything about what York Region deserves or respect or anything of the sort. It's about policy and planning. In point form:
1) today it serves the function of serving riders already traveling to Finch by inefficient modes (ie bus or driving)
2) connecting the subway the relatively short distance to Highway 7 (especially to Steeles) connects it to existing RT (GO and Viva) and planned RT expansion (RER, 407 Transitway and even Viva conversion to LRT, one day). This creates a unique density of transit, hence the Anchor Mobility Hub designation.
3) it ALSO facilitates current and future intensification along the corridor (see point 1) and is integral to the intensification of the Markham-RH growth centre.
So to finally answer your question:
-there is already BRT connecting RHC to VMC aaaand the EA for the 407 Transitway is also done, making your LRT unnecessary, at least for several years. Probably 2-3 decades.
-I think a subway to Steeles and then an LRT to Highway 7 is a lot of effort to create a useless transfer rather than a seamless journey, based entirely on where a line on a map happens to be. I also think (obviously ) an LRT requires reductions in the planned population/intensification along the corridor and very especially in the growth centre (though I won't bore 44 by re-explaining why).
THAT SAID: if funding requirements meant an LRT now or a subway in 20 years - it would certainly be preferable to nothing by a longshot. I do not, to be clear, object wholesale to the very notion of LRT, the way they seem to be doing in Scarborough. But it remains a distant second choice and one which I believe is inadequate and inefficient for the corridor in question, particularly given the planning goals established in the provincial, regional and local plans.
Hopefully that all sounds fair and reasonable. If not, oh well.
Last edited:
Cobra
Senior Member
If that's the case, we shouldn't be talking subway, should we?
44 North
Senior Member
Don't have a limited view of shifting planning dynamics. We've had these discussions before so no need to rehash another essay. Guess I was trying to keep things in perspective to what I saw as an incessant and unfair pissing contest. This is a lot of money, we know no other option was considered, we haven't had new updates in awhile, and Thornhill or RHC/LG isn't anything like Y+E or North York. A decade is a long time for a multi-Billion dollar plan to remain virtually unchanged. I've never seen anyone on this forum claim no quality transit should be built on Yonge, that there's been zero development, doubt that the GTHA is growing, or believe Yonge to be a 2-lane dirt road. You say people write these things, but I've never seen it. If people want to discuss transit or politics they should be able to without having their comments dissected then accused of being some anti-transit/anti-development rube.
minilude
Active Member
When the BRT needs to be upgraded to LRT, do you think an LRT today (which you are not opposing right?) will not be good enough for a subway at that time? Plus Yonge always has better potential than any other BRT corridors.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
There are some people here who clearly have little idea what they are talking about and who oppose the project for illogical or non-sensical reasons. There are definitely people who don't understand where the "subway to Richmond Hill" actually goes, for one. For all we disagree on, I don't think you're one of those people and that's not what I "accuse" you of. I just think you're very dismissive of sincere, well-intentioned efforts based on a ridiculously small sample size. It's an error I feel like you make often - laughing at Davis Drive, which opened last year, and which is the start of a 30-year project to urbanize a stretch of Newmarket, for example.
I know you're not "anti-transit" or anything of the sort. I just take issue with some of your blind spots. No doubt that's reciprocal
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Fast FYI :Viva is designed to be easily upgraded to LRT when warranted. And Gila Martow has no clue what she's talking about on transit. For one, she has opined the Centre Street $ should go to the subway (how? To do what?) and compared Centre to St Clair. Ugh.
Cobra
Senior Member
As you often said...I didn't know that geology drastically changed because of the magic border of Steeles Avenue.
Also, 6 stations for at least $250M+ each, plus tunneling under highway 427. Come on man! Be realistic. It will be much higher than the SSE
Thanks for the correction
With the city getting the memo on paying for transit (finally), in theory, the city could extend to Steeles on their own if they truly wanted too and not being held hostage by a Sorbara V.2 scenario. Toronto would mist likely keep Cummer or just rough it in for the future.
So now we're building subway stations to accommodate parking lots??? How many red flags do we need?
You'd think that people would be more inclined to take the YRT to get to a station within YR.
Why should Toronto care about Markham Growth Centre? They will be service by GO RER so I don't get why the subway is relevant here.
You're very dodgy on this one. Deep down you get where I'm going with this but you won't admit it. What was that ex-mayor used to say? "Subways, subways, subways!"
LRT would be faster with higher capacity. You're not answering my question
There's no evidence in your answer demonstrating that LRT couldn't fulfill the same role
LRT wouldn't prevent that. You know why you can't answer my question on "how the LRT would prevent RHC to reach it's growth targets"? Because no business case evaluating LRT was done nor included in the EA, so you really don't know yourself.
Fair enough, so that's a cheaper tab. Basically, the only corridor in need of a higher rapid transit mode is Yonge according to you
Useless transfer? Isn't the whole point of this subway is also to basically have RHC be it's own downtown? Every major urban centres usually have transfers (Downtown Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, London, Paris...even NYCC and soon Yonge and Eglinton). If you're downplaying the importance of RHC being YR downtown, why does it warrant a subway? If the whole point of this is to move more efficiently all these people to the TTC subway, it can be done at a fraction of the price.
Like I said, this isn't 2009 anymore. Love or hate Tory, he seems willing to show some "teeth" against the province in comparison to previous mayors. He's willing to pay for transit and find ways to do it. The political landscape is changing, the Sorbara deal that got Vaughan a subway will be unbelievably be harder to replicate now that Scarborough is making noise and the rest of the city on making transit the #1 priority. Is transit the #1 priority in YR? Do residents even wants that kind of densification going their way? Are they ready to pay more taxes for it? The jury is still out on that one.
Politically-wise, by election time, GO RER (Recent feds investment), Finch & Eglinton LRT will be too far along to cancel. Any party not supporting the Relief Line and the SSE will be shut out of the city this time around. My only worry for Toronto will be Waterfront LRT, which the PC would be smart not to oppose. Vaughan is already getting their subway and Markham will get GO RER, is 1 riding (Richmond Hill because Thornhill is already under PC Control) worth spending over $6B? The same PC looking to slash spending?
Good question indeed...
Cobra
Senior Member
LRT would be perfect for RHC, just like Mississauga is doing and I hope you conceded that they'd have a much stronger case for subway than Richmond Hill... right?
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
They could extend the Yonge Line to Upper Canada Mall that would phase out the BRT to Newmarket.
minilude
Active Member
If it is not Yonge St (which is in Mississauga's case) then might be an LRT. Now it's only BRT or Subway. I mean now not decades/100years later. If you really think this filibuster could last 100 years, I hope you could win on the LRT network, at least I won't be there to concede.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
As you often said...I didn't know that geology drastically changed because of the magic border of Steeles Avenue.
Also, 6 stations for at least $250M+ each, plus tunneling under highway 427. Come on man! Be realistic. It will be much higher than the SSE
First, I assume you mean 407, not 427.
Second, I'm not sure why you think tunneling under a (elevated) highway is harder than tunneling under any other road.
Third, the Yonge line would not have to go under any rivers so, yeah, the geology is substantially different. Like, there's no Bluffs in Markham. Because it's a different place from Scarborough These are the sorts of things they look at when they do an EA.
Is this not obvious? You think the locations and tunnel depth don't factor into costs?
(It would cross the East Don but would run at grade there.)
So now we're building subway stations to accommodate parking lots??? How many red flags do we need?
I know you're throwing out emojis but we do understand how/why terminal stations get parking lots, right?
And, as with Finch, this one will be under a hydro corridor so it's not "wasting space." Point is, Langstaff Station is an absolute certainty.
Go up a couple of posts to where I told 44North that SOME people - but not him - just have no sense of the geography involved here. You don't actually know where we're talking about, do you? Are you aware that the subway only goes like 200m into Richmond Hill? Are you aware that the terminal Urban Growth Centre is split in two, with half in Markham and half in Richmond Hill? And that Markham, with that Yonge Street frontage, has more growth potential than the other munis involved here? I'm not posting maps etc. Just google "Langstaff Gateway."
I now see we've hit on the nub of the problem: you don't actually know the geographical or planning context. I thought every regular on the thread knew this, as it's been discussed a bazillion times. You can go through old pages or look up Peter Calthorpe or ask further questions as you see fit. I will sum it up quickly:
-The Langstaff Gateway UGC was designed in a unique way. The density and population figures were reverse-engineered from the capacity of the subway (and other modes planned for the centre). The development phasing is similarly tied to the subway and its capacity.
-To be clear, RHC (the other half of the centre) and the Secondary Plans governing both sides of Yonge Street also establish densities anticipating a subway but not in the same intrinsic way as the Langstaff Plan does.
-These plans, because they are just plans, can be amended and modified. 44 and I have quibbled over the semantics but of course they can change. But if you change the subway to LRT it fundamentally alters - LOWERS the growth capacity of the Markham growth centre. This is all spelled out in explicit language in the Langstaff Gateway Secondary Plan and it's been posted about and pasted directly into this thread before.
That's my ample "evidence" that LRT couldn't fulfill the same role.
you're also confusing business cases with Environmental Assessments but luckily that's a red herring. the answer is because whereas most developments cannot be built unless there is adequate road capacity, Langstaff assumes virtually no road capacity and thereby is contingent on the subway, specficially.
No, that's not what I said. But all you have to do is look at TTC plans dating back 100 years, or go back to Lord Simcoe, if you like, to see the primacy of Yonge. Yonge Street is Yonge Street, as I've said before. If you offered me a free parcel of land to develop at Yonge/7 or Scarborough Town Centre or Sheppard and Vic Park or just about anywhere else, I wouldn't have to think twice.
Why don't you take a foreign friend on a helicopter tour of the GTA and see if he or she can ID the most natural place in the region for high-order transit. I'll give you 10:1 odds they point at Yonge Street.
No, again. You just don't know as much as I assumed. I just explained that that's not "the whole point."
If you introduce an LRT, you are asking riders going north/south to take a subway to Finch (or Steeles!) and then an LRT to 7 and then a BRT north from there. Ergo, you eliminate a "useless" transfer if the subway goes straight to Highway 7 where, as I mentioned multiple transit modes are converging.
your examples of transfers are also, all due respect, absurd. People are transferring at NYCC and dowtown and Yonge/Eg but not IN THE SAME DIRECTION! What you are talking about is as if people had to transfer to LRT to go from Bloor to union. Come on, man. Throw me a bone. Obviously people have to transfer if they're changing from N/S to E/W travel.
I feel bad re-attacking your same incorrect point.
It's not "YR downtown," it's "RH downtown," sort of. If you don't understand what Mobility Hubs and Urban Growth Centres are, just google them.
But the real mistake you keep making is that I explain how the subway does MORE THAN ONE THING and you keep going, "Oh, I thought it was this thing. Oh, I thought it was that thing" and asking me to explain it.
It both facilitates a higher level of intensification than an LRT would and creates a more efficient, seamless network. Is that hard to grasp? it seems really obvious to me.
Yes, that's why the image he paints of himself is of wearing short pants when he goes to beg Wynne for money. That's why he was embarassed by her - in a move I decry alongside him, BTW - when she pulled the rug out on tolls.
I stood by Tory until a few weeks ago. He's embarassing himself now. He's not "willing to pay for transit and find[ing] ways to do it," any more than Ford was. But enjoy the Kool-Aid and give me a ring when he's built the DRL and Raildeck Park, for that matter.
Out on that one? You asked 3 questions. But I'll answer them:
1) I don't know who "YR" is in your question. The Official Plan, yes, establishes non-auto mode share and transit as key priorities along with "complete streets," "complete communities" and all those other sorts of things. Markham was decades ahead of Places to Grow on this stuff.
The Secondary Plans for RHC and LG, with which you are apparently unfamiliar, do indeed assume a "transit first" planning context. In LG it is by necessity as, as I said above, road capacity is insufficient to generate intensification.
2) There are no residents in or directly adjacent to the UGC, which you'd probably know if you knew half of it was in Markham. Many came to the public consultations for the 2 Secondary Plans and many more for the subway EA. I can safely say people were generally supportive, yes.
3) They're already paying higher taxes than Toronto residents and there is no evidence to suggest they'd object to paying more, in some fashion, to facilitate the Yonge extension (which would be funded in part by development charges, but why muddy the waters?!)
So, you didn't get the memo but the jury ruled long ago on these matters. Now you're up to speed.
Hello - 2010 is on the phone. It wants to explain something to you.
Obviously the Crosstown is a done deal. If you think the EELRT is as well (or will be by the next election), I've got some lovely swampland in Florida I think you could really make use of.
Thornhill is more than one riding (and one of them is Liberal) but, again, your lack of actual local knowledge is showing. All this easily available, straightforward information about what is happening in this area is really quite germane to most of your questions - many of which are not BAD questions. It's just they have easy and objective answers you didn't know.
Last edited:
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
I know/think this is a joke but just FYI for Cobra, this could never happen because you can't build a subway through the Oak Ridges Moraine. The subway will never ever go north of Elgin Mills for this reason.
Yes, the geology varies depending where you are trying to build a tunnel. This is why we have an EA process (technically a TPAP process but you get the idea).
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
So I guess elevated is not good enough for some people passed Elgin Mills.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
I guess if it could be tunnelled north of Oak Ridges it would be proposed to be extended to Newmarket, or perhaps even Barrie.