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

[minilude]

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).

you are treating a joke too seriously...

 

[Cobra]

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.)

I won't debate geology with you, but it's absurd to imply that the YNSE will be cheaper than SSE with 6 stations and over 1km longer.

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.

I was just using your own words that Langstaff will be the parking lot station with (projected development) because RHC won't have parking which is an upgrated Highway 407 station... As for Langstaff development, Bessarion still has no stations over the site and with rent control measures and more coming to cool down the real estate market, that EA is needs an update once those measures are passed. What you see as a no-brainer to you is absolutely the wrong way to plan transit and you want to sink billions of taxpayer money to replicate one last time the Sheppard line and the 1 stop SSE which are viewed almost unanimously as mistakes of epic proportion. Interesting.

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?

Regarding Markham, it's accurate to say that they will get the GO RER service ahead of a potential YNSE and as of now, Unionville Go to Union is 45 minutes on the train. The Markham downtown I'm referring to is this one : http://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/downtown-markham# where Unionville GO is an that's where they clearly planned to be their centre. I'm fully aware of where Markham is and that sure they would profit from a subway on Yonge, but the subway is irrelevant in regard to that centre I was trying to referring to as someone living in that area is better of with GO

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.

And that's exactly why you should never plan like this. You don't know what can happen in the future or how the market will go. What if there's a recession? Change of government? The real estate bubble burst? Rent control and further policies to cool down the GTA market? And then what? You need to build transit to serve existing riders and NOT potential riders from a hypothetical project based on an hypothetical subway.

That's my ample "evidence" that LRT couldn't fulfill the same role.

You don't know that because they purposely excluded LRT from the report. Again, you want the subway as a tool to create a demand for RHC and you don't seem to understand that it's the worst way to plan transit. Let the market create that demand for a subway, not the other way around. What...YR can't convince businesses and residents to move without a subway? Seems like an identity crisis to me...Suburban city trying to be "Metropolitain Centre or Corporate Centre? Oh, Vaughan... Like I said last time, Mississauga has a way stronger case than YR.

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.

So we should spend over $6B to eliminate an "inconvenient" transfer even if the LRT goes underground to meet the subway? Wow...If a cross platform transfer of less than a minute is enough to turn that many people off from using an LRT, why the hell would subway make sense?

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.

With your constant bashing of the SSE, I'd assume that you feel that it's ok for Scarborough but YR citizens are too good to be subject to the same treatment... You'd be more credible by supporting the elimination of the Kennedy transfer

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.

I don't know why as a Toronto taxpayer, I should care about all that stuff going on in YR regarding the growth centre and stuff. Why should I not be concerned that part of the reasons that my taxes are going up is for the TTC to be able to afford the costs of a Richmond Hill subway? That's what most taxpayers in this city are wondering and before you say that Ontario pays for Toronto "toys", I'll stop you right there and tell you that most of the money funding the Metrolinx (which mandate is to serve the region) comes from Toronto as well. Perhaps you should lobby for Metrolinx to upload the TTC taking it off the city books.

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.

Piss poor attitude. The Relief line is necessary for the whole region, very shortsided to turn this into a competition. YNSE can wait, not the relief line and it's a given that the city will have to raise some of that cost themselves.

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.

You're funny!!! Stick to your day job and avoid politics. If Toronto ever pulled a Montreal stunt, those taxes would go up...way up!

Thornhill is more than one riding (and one of them is Liberal) but, again, your lack of actual local knowledge is showing.

Unless the electoral map changed, Thornhill is a provincial electoral district that covers Thornhill with some parts of Vaughan and Markham. FYI

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I won't debate geology with you, but it's absurd to imply that the YNSE will be cheaper than SSE with 6 stations and over 1km longer.

You're right - context doesn't matter. A tunnel is a tunnel, length is length, stations are stations. That's why it's just as easy to walk 500km north from Miami as it is to walk 500km east.

I was just using your own words that Langstaff will be the parking lot station with (projected development) because RHC won't have parking which is an upgrated Highway 407 station...

Say what? Forget about my words. Understand the plans. Langstaff is not like the 407 station on the Spadina line.

As for Langstaff development, Bessarion still has no stations over the site and with rent control measures and more coming to cool down the real estate market,

sigh. Again - this has nothing to do the EA.
This rather has to do with how the land use planning for the UGC was determined. Go read the Secondary Plan if you like.

And again, context matters. I'll just assume you're neither involved in transportation planning nor real estate if you think Yonge/7 is the same as Bessarion, of all places. (And it's not like there isn't massive development at every other single station on the Sheppard line.)

Regarding Markham, it's accurate to say that they will get the GO RER service ahead of a potential YNSE and as of now, Unionville Go to Union is 45 minutes on the train. The Markham downtown I'm referring to is this one :

Jeeze, dude. I can't believe you're telling me about Downtown Markham which has NOTHING to do with this. I was explaining - because you misconstrued a reference I made - that this subway serves a growth centre in the municipality of Markham. Read about Langstaff Gateway and get back to me.

The fact that someone in that growth centre is better served by GO is not under dispute. Neither is that the Giants baseball team plays in San Francisco. They're just not germane to the discussions.

If anything, you're proving my point because Markham totally agrees with you that Markham Centre is planned around GO and Viva. But they also seem to think that the LG Centre is planned around the subway (and GO and Viva and RER and the Transitway). So, you can't cherrypick the Markham plan that proves your point while ignoring the other, which disproves it.

Don't concede Markham kinda sorta might profit if the Yonge line was built. It's absolutely central to their plans for meeting the growth targets set out in provincial policy. If you don't understand the larger policy context in which the growth centres and associated transit are operating, you don't have have valid criticisms to offer, with all due respect.

And that's exactly why you should never plan like this. You don't know what can happen in the future or how the market will go. What if there's a recession? Change of government?

What if ISIS attacks us? What if the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup Why have plans at all? What's the point of Places to Grow or Metrolinx or municipal official plans or zoning laws or airplane reservations or lottery tickets?

Why even have a planning profession or a Planning Act? I mean....Like I said, either you understand the macro goals here or you don't. You're telling me you don't.

You don't know that because they purposely excluded LRT from the report. Again, you want the subway as a tool to create a demand for RHC and you don't seem to understand that it's the worst way to plan transit.

I do understand because, and I'm really trying to be nice and civil and even educational, I know way way more about it than you do. The subway is not a TOOL TO CREATE demand. The subway is a spine with which to facilitate intensification. So is an LRT, obviously. but it's not as strong a tool; just like you can eat a chunky soup with a fork but a spoon works better.

I can't spend days - certainly not typing stuff out, perhaps in a verbal dialogue - explaining the history of planning in the GTA, the purposes of the PPS, the Places to Grow Act, the Greenbelt Act, The Big Move and so forth. Suffice it to say, the subway and the urban growth centres we're talking about present a convergence of policy and historical trends. you make it sound like we're proposing a subway for Orangeville and hoping some people move in. that's not what this is.

Seems like an identity crisis to me...Suburban city trying to be "Metropolitain Centre or Corporate Centre? Oh, Vaughan... Like I said last time, Mississauga has a way stronger case than YR.

With each successive post you're helping me realize how little you know.
You're damn straight it's about identity: it's about historic suburbs urbanizing. I thought that was a good thing? Would we rather have 1980s-era Vaughan forever?
Again, there's lots of scholarly work about this and I'm not getting into it. Make whatever irrelevant case you want about Mississauga. For that matter, fail to understand why Vaughan changed the name of VCC to VMC or why Coke produces both Coke Zero and Diet Coke.

It all makes perfect sense to me and I'm happy to explain it all, but it only works if you know the things you don't know for starters.

So we should spend over $6B to eliminate an "inconvenient" transfer even if the LRT goes underground to meet the subway? Wow...If a cross platform transfer of less than a minute is enough to turn that many people off from using an LRT, why the hell would subway make sense?

why are you doing exactly what I just told you to do?
First you say, "OH, so it's about a transfer, eh?"
And I say, "No the point is to facilitate intensification along an entire corridor, create transit-oriented nodes and a seamless transit network."
Then you say, "OH, we should spend $6B to make a downtown in RH?"
And I repeat myself, more clearly.
And five seconds later, you're back to, "OH, so we should spend $6B to eliminate a transfer that's inconvenient?"

I've tried to politely and sincerely answer what I thought were sincere questions. I'm done explaining things you choose not to understand. And stop framing it as "my opinion." the reasons I'm laying out for you, over and over again, are enunciated clearly in various provincial documents, from The Big Move through the Growth Plan. The subway is part of larger project of meeting those goals.

I don't know why as a Toronto taxpayer, I should care about all that stuff going on in YR regarding the growth centre and stuff.

I don't care if you don't care.
All I care about is that if you're going to offer your opinion, at length, you know what you're talking about. You are and you don't.

Piss poor attitude. The Relief line is necessary for the whole region, very shortsided to turn this into a competition. YNSE can wait, not the relief line and it's a given that the city will have to raise some of that cost themselves.

are you talking to a third person who isn't here? Who said it's a competition? Are you referring to John Tory, who said that this week? I already said, multiple times, that we need the DRL. I happen to hold the opinion that Yonge can go first and have presented it as such. Your assertion that Yonge "can wait" is your opinion, which you convey as fact. It isn't.

You're funny!!! Stick to your day job and avoid politics. If Toronto ever pulled a Montreal stunt, those taxes would go up...way up!

I try - in my finer moments - to both entertain and educate.
The question for you, I guess, is what IS my day job? Hmmm.

Unless the electoral map changed, Thornhill is a provincial electoral district that covers Thornhill with some parts of Vaughan and Markham. FYI

It changed, my friend. Couldn't you google before offering a misguided retort?
(In fairness to you, this is as of the next election. I did make a mistake, implying that the Liberal Markham-TH riding is provincially Liberal. That's not the case though the polling in the last provincial election was strongly PC on the west side of Yonge and strongly Liberal on the east. I assume that pattern will roughly hold.)

 

[aquateam]

Why have plans at all? What's the point of Places to Grow or Metrolinx or municipal official plans or zoning laws or airplane reservations or lottery tickets?

Why even have a planning profession or a Planning Act? I mean....Like I said, either you understand the macro goals here or you don't. You're telling me you don't.

That's a better question than you think it is...

 

[Cobra]

You're right - context doesn't matter. A tunnel is a tunnel, length is length, stations are stations. That's why it's just as easy to walk 500km north from Miami as it is to walk 500km east.



Say what? Forget about my words. Understand the plans. Langstaff is not like the 407 station on the Spadina line.



sigh. Again - this has nothing to do the EA.
This rather has to do with how the land use planning for the UGC was determined. Go read the Secondary Plan if you like.

And again, context matters. I'll just assume you're neither involved in transportation planning nor real estate if you think Yonge/7 is the same as Bessarion, of all places. (And it's not like there isn't massive development at every other single station on the Sheppard line.)



Jeeze, dude. I can't believe you're telling me about Downtown Markham which has NOTHING to do with this. I was explaining - because you misconstrued a reference I made - that this subway serves a growth centre in the municipality of Markham. Read about Langstaff Gateway and get back to me.

The fact that someone in that growth centre is better served by GO is not under dispute. Neither is that the Giants baseball team plays in San Francisco. They're just not germane to the discussions.

If anything, you're proving my point because Markham totally agrees with you that Markham Centre is planned around GO and Viva. But they also seem to think that the LG Centre is planned around the subway (and GO and Viva and RER and the Transitway). So, you can't cherrypick the Markham plan that proves your point while ignoring the other, which disproves it.

Don't concede Markham kinda sorta might profit if the Yonge line was built. It's absolutely central to their plans for meeting the growth targets set out in provincial policy. If you don't understand the larger policy context in which the growth centres and associated transit are operating, you don't have have valid criticisms to offer, with all due respect.



What if ISIS attacks us? What if the Maple Leafs win the Stanley Cup Why have plans at all? What's the point of Places to Grow or Metrolinx or municipal official plans or zoning laws or airplane reservations or lottery tickets?

Why even have a planning profession or a Planning Act? I mean....Like I said, either you understand the macro goals here or you don't. You're telling me you don't.



I do understand because, and I'm really trying to be nice and civil and even educational, I know way way more about it than you do. The subway is not a TOOL TO CREATE demand. The subway is a spine with which to facilitate intensification. So is an LRT, obviously. but it's not as strong a tool; just like you can eat a chunky soup with a fork but a spoon works better.

I can't spend days - certainly not typing stuff out, perhaps in a verbal dialogue - explaining the history of planning in the GTA, the purposes of the PPS, the Places to Grow Act, the Greenbelt Act, The Big Move and so forth. Suffice it to say, the subway and the urban growth centres we're talking about present a convergence of policy and historical trends. you make it sound like we're proposing a subway for Orangeville and hoping some people move in. that's not what this is.



With each successive post you're helping me realize how little you know.
You're damn straight it's about identity: it's about historic suburbs urbanizing. I thought that was a good thing? Would we rather have 1980s-era Vaughan forever?
Again, there's lots of scholarly work about this and I'm not getting into it. Make whatever irrelevant case you want about Mississauga. For that matter, fail to understand why Vaughan changed the name of VCC to VMC or why Coke produces both Coke Zero and Diet Coke.

It all makes perfect sense to me and I'm happy to explain it all, but it only works if you know the things you don't know for starters.



why are you doing exactly what I just told you to do?
First you say, "OH, so it's about a transfer, eh?"
And I say, "No the point is to facilitate intensification along an entire corridor, create transit-oriented nodes and a seamless transit network."
Then you say, "OH, we should spend $6B to make a downtown in RH?"
And I repeat myself, more clearly.
And five seconds later, you're back to, "OH, so we should spend $6B to eliminate a transfer that's inconvenient?"

I've tried to politely and sincerely answer what I thought were sincere questions. I'm done explaining things you choose not to understand. And stop framing it as "my opinion." the reasons I'm laying out for you, over and over again, are enunciated clearly in various provincial documents, from The Big Move through the Growth Plan. The subway is part of larger project of meeting those goals.




I don't care if you don't care.
All I care about is that if you're going to offer your opinion, at length, you know what you're talking about. You are and you don't.




are you talking to a third person who isn't here? Who said it's a competition? Are you referring to John Tory, who said that this week? I already said, multiple times, that we need the DRL. I happen to hold the opinion that Yonge can go first and have presented it as such. Your assertion that Yonge "can wait" is your opinion, which you convey as fact. It isn't.



I try - in my finer moments - to both entertain and educate.
The question for you, I guess, is what IS my day job? Hmmm.



It changed, my friend. Couldn't you google before offering a misguided retort?
(In fairness to you, this is as of the next election. I did make a mistake, implying that the Liberal Markham-TH riding is provincially Liberal. That's not the case though the polling in the last provincial election was strongly PC on the west side of Yonge and strongly Liberal on the east. I assume that pattern will roughly hold.)View attachment 104470

Keep calm and keep waiting, cheers

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I will do both those things, thank you.

I suspect it'll be another year or two before anything really happens so it's a good break in which you can read the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, maybe visit the corridor or even learn the differences between Secondary Plans and the transit environmental assessment process.
Hopefully some of the new things you've learned this week (e.g. how many stations are planned, where they are, the existence of joint transportation studies, how many ridings there are in Thornhill etc.) will stand you in good stead on your journey.

By then Toronto may have even advanced the SSE up to the same point the Yonge line is now at without entirely scuttling it for the 5th time.

 

[WislaHD]

I've been busy and couldn't really keep up with this thread the past few days but I have to say that it is pretty absurd to think growth won't be continuing along the Yonge Corridor. If there is anywhere in Toronto where growth has always followed, it is along the Yonge spine.

Even if you don't believe in the Hwy7/Yonge hub will turn out like the renders, Yonge and Steeles will see massive development on all 4 corners, both Toronto and York sides. I expect North York will continue its condo growth in sites like Newtonbrook plaza around where a Cummer Station would be placed.

The ridership numbers and growth plans are there to support Yonge North Extension. Forcing a transfer along the same corridor is not desirable, especially when something like ~20,000 peak hour riders are expected to be departing from Finch by 2031.

The question has always been capacity constraints of the Yonge Line, not whether extending the subway north of Finch to Steeles was desirable. Now, the portion between Steeles and Richmond Hill is a different question. An extension from Steeles to RH would bring in an additional 6,600 pphd which isn't bad, but could be served by LRT. Disregarding capacity constraints on Yonge for a moment, if you look at York Region's growth plans for the corridor, they are actually viable (unlike say, Scarborough), and it is obviously a corridor requring rapid transit looking at pphd, number of buses on the corridor, and road constraints. Introducing a new transfer at Steeles with all these people still transferring onto the subway anyway, is just dumb planning and won't help capacity issues on Yonge Line. The subway will still be flooded by York residents by the time the train reaches NYCC.

However, having York Region buy in to expansion plans, should be a great motivator for the province to fund the DRL, as well as contribute to Toronto's share of any Yonge North extension. Political buy-in is the only way any subway extension will be funded and built, and York Region is key to that. I say, leverage it. York Region, you can have a subway on your side of Yonge, but you havve to join us in demanding Queen's Park provide funding for the DRL.

 

[TransitBart]

The irony at this point is that the longer it goes without being built the more the capacity issues grow and also the more the population growth north of steeles continues. Delaying that extension is obviously curtailing or redistributing that growth, for now. But there are still new 905 riders getting in the TTC at Finch. (some, who live west of Yonge, will presumably try the Spadina extension once it's open) It's a huge Catch 22 created by how little infrastructure we've built up keep up with growth.


The governance issues are just the proverbial Mento in the already overflowing bottle of Diet Coke.

This is the story of the past 30 years.

 

[M II A II R II K]

It should be the job of GO to provide rapid transit into Toronto. There could be just be a single Thornhill stop as a transit hub and it would also avoid confusion when paying separate fares between the 2 systems.

 

[44 North]

why are you doing exactly what I just told you to do?
First you say, "OH, so it's about a transfer, eh?"
And I say, "No the point is to facilitate intensification along an entire corridor, create transit-oriented nodes and a seamless transit network."
Then you say, "OH, we should spend $6B to make a downtown in RH?"
And I repeat myself, more clearly.
And five seconds later, you're back to, "OH, so we should spend $6B to eliminate a transfer that's inconvenient?"

I've tried to politely and sincerely answer what I thought were sincere questions. I'm done explaining things you choose not to understand. And stop framing it as "my opinion." the reasons I'm laying out for you, over and over again, are enunciated clearly in various provincial documents, from The Big Move through the Growth Plan. The subway is part of larger project of meeting those goals.

And the system Cobra is describing could equally meet those goals. Your argument ultimately boils down to an opposition to a transfer, and a sordid belief that anything which isn't a Line 1 extension is nothing. No, worse than nothing. Where did Cobra say he wants zero intensification, zero transit-oriented nodes, and zero transit network? He didn't, you know he didn't, so why are you pretending like you're correcting him.

If an LRT or second subway line were to exist north of Steeles, everything proposed in RHC and Six Flags Langstaff Gateway could exist exactly as envisioned. As could any peripheral development. Arguably even better, since the line could be farther-reaching, higher-freq, meet YR's ridiculous TMP for a subway up to Major Mack, maybe become part/parcel of the demands for rail on 407, and actually provide service to the oddly elongate LG. These are the types of things he's discussing. Again, not nothing, nor a bus, nor a concrete wall.

And then this is the part where you try to correct the infidel by saying 'no it cant cuz only subways - seamless subways - work'. We know that's bs, and that nothing else save for a mixed-traffic bus was presented as an alternative. Since a mixed-traffic bus is not what Cobra is talking about, then his points are completely valid. Ultimately it is your opinion that says otherwise. Find any paper that says a platform-platform transfer results in zero policy goals met, or in 1980s-era sprawl and auto-dependency. Maybe it's less preferred, but not zero or less than zero as you continually posit. And the phasing stuff has been out the window for awhile. It's not 2007 anymore. What was "enunciated clearly" several years ago? YNSE ain't happening without RL. What did we learn about recently? RL will be done in 2031 (as dumb as that is). So really so much is speculative that it's all worthy of the Fantasy thread.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

However, having York Region buy in to expansion plans, should be a great motivator for the province to fund the DRL, as well as contribute to Toronto's share of any Yonge North extension. Political buy-in is the only way any subway extension will be funded and built, and York Region is key to that. I say, leverage it. York Region, you can have a subway on your side of Yonge, but you havve to join us in demanding Queen's Park provide funding for the DRL.

I'm not saying this should ACTUALLY take place but would certainly be amusing if York Region's chair held a press conference, standing alongside the Mayors of Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill, saying they were willing and ready to enter into negotiations with the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario to contribute funding to the DRL and discuss an agreement for future O&M contributions to the Yonge extension.

Would throw everyone into a tizzy and be a great PR stunt, if nothing else.

It should be the job of GO to provide rapid transit into Toronto. There could be just be a single Thornhill stop as a transit hub and it would also avoid confusion when paying separate fares between the 2 systems.

The province of Ontario and John Tory totally disagree with you about the function of GO transit so go back to making jokes on every thread about subways to Sudbury or whatever. Also, feel free to explore post- Sgt Pepper music. It's not 1967 anymore.

And the system Cobra is describing could equally meet those goals. Your argument ultimately boils down to an opposition to a transfer, and a sordid belief that anything which isn't a Line 1 extension is nothing. No, worse than nothing. Where did Cobra say he wants zero intensification, zero transit-oriented nodes, and zero transit network? He didn't, you know he didn't, so why are you pretending like you're correcting him.

Was a time you also confused the EA and the Secondary Planning process. He knows less than you do and is missing many key facts that would underpin a logical argument.

An LRT could indeed meet the macro planning goals. It could not, by definition, EQUALLY meet the actual density targets. I've explained why and cited sources. Agree or (more likely) disagree as you see fit.

I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or not you haven't already mentioned PODS, the central feature of all these plans, as we all know.

If an LRT or second subway line were to exist north of Steeles, everything proposed in RHC and Six Flags Langstaff Gateway could exist exactly as envisioned. As could any peripheral development.

No it couldn't. Like I said, ask the head of Markham's planning department or Peter Calthorpe or the head of YR planning or someone at IBI who vetted the transportation planning work or ANYONE else in an official capacity about this. I'm happy to provide names and numbers.
Calthorpe-510.548.6800
Markham - Jim Baird - 905-830-4444 Ext. 1320

Produce a legit quote from them proving me wrong - that the density and populations figures won't change if it's an LRT instead of a subway - and I will retract the dozens of times I've refuted this. I'm not daring you, understand. I just know you're wrong because I have spoken to these people and produced quotes from the relevant documents and you have no evidence but for your own opinion to the contrary. If you're not going to call, then stop asserting something I've shown to be wrong.

I'll say it one more time: I do not utterly object to the concept of an LRT from Finch to 7 (or beyond). But it WOULD result in reductions of the planned densities because of the unique back-casting approach they used in the planning. If you're willing to live with those (well, not YOU so much as the politicians, planners and - gulp- landowners), I'm willing to as well.

If you think I'm wrong about this, just prove it.

Also, the judges have ruled that "Six Flags" counts as a PODS reference.

Find any paper that says a platform-platform transfer results in zero policy goals met, or in 1980s-era sprawl and auto-dependency.

No, you're the one producing zero sum game equations. that's not what I said. But since you asked, from Table 1 ("
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN")
of The Big Move:

All of these, on balance, favour a subway straight to the Anchor Mobility Hub at Highway 7 rather than a transfer to another mode, if possible. They are policy goals, not the Ten Commandments, but they speak for themselves to that extent. So, yes, as you say, it's "less preferred." I never said it's impossible; it's just obviously less efficient.

And, lordy, I thought we were past this - I'm not producing the table again but you're 100%, 180-degrees, completely and dead wrong about the phasing. The tables in the Secondary Plan do NOT have dates on them. They have BENCHMARKS. There are (IIRC) 5,000 units of housing currently allocated to the entire UGC. No more units can be allocated until (IIRC), the subway is at least formally announced/funded. Further phases are similarly tied to benchmarks (the start of construction, full servcice etc.) AND the achieving of modal split targets. It's all spelled out and black and white with not a single date so it's entirely and completely "in the window," I assure you.

If you want to ask Jim Baird whether the phasing is "out the window" now, produce a quote and I will have no choice but to eat a lot of crow.

Opinions, we differ on. The facts remain.
I enjoy a good debate as much as the next guy but, gosh, it's frustrating when Cobra says York Region traffic isn't Toronto's problem, I produce a joint transportation study they did and he says, "Uh, I didn't notice - cuz I only looked at the logos." Or you say the phasing is "out the window" I show you the detailed phasing regime in the Secondary Plan, which proves you wrong, and a year later you're repeating the same nonsense.

 

[44 North]

Didn't confuse EA with secondary plan. Calthorpe plan from long ago, and it's whackadoo. Any "phasing" can be tweaked for an LRT (again not nothing or mixed-traffic bus). Doesn't mean an LRT can't work, that the world stopped turning when YNSE was delayed indefinitely, or that the site can't be developed with identical densities. Best case ridership for that station show LRT can more than handle the mode shares - you show me it can't. Never said RTP doesn't favour a seamless subway, on the contrary. But I don't see zero, or negative, or 1980s sprawl listed when there's a platform-platform transfer.

 

[WislaHD]

I'm not saying this should ACTUALLY take place but would certainly be amusing if York Region's chair held a press conference, standing alongside the Mayors of Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill, saying they were willing and ready to enter into negotiations with the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario to contribute funding to the DRL and discuss an agreement for future O&M contributions to the Yonge extension.

Would throw everyone into a tizzy and be a great PR stunt, if nothing else.

I would settle for just O&M.

If the subway is going north of Steeles, they should pay the TTC a percentage for O&M equivalent to the cost of servicing the 4.6km of subway north of Steeles and for servicing the York residents on the system. It is more expensive to service York residents by subway than it is to service Toronto residents, on average. (Longer distances, and frankly, they are taking up capacity from further down the line, though hopefully the latter point won't be relevant in post-DRL scenario.)

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Didn't confuse EA with secondary plan. Calthorpe plan from long ago, and it's whackadoo. Any "phasing" can be tweaked for an LRT (again not nothing or mixed-traffic bus). Doesn't mean an LRT can't work, that the world stopped turning when YNSE was delayed indefinitely, or that the site can't be developed with identical densities. Best case ridership for that station show LRT can more than handle the mode shares - you show me it can't. Never said RTP doesn't favour a seamless subway, on the contrary. But I don't see zero, or negative, or 1980s sprawl listed when there's a platform-platform transfer.

The Calthorpe Master Plan is different from the approved Secondary Plan. I produced quotes from the Secondary Plan saying densities would have to be adjusted if there were changes to the subway or other modes. You keep asserting otherwise but with no evidence to counter mine. I ask you to produce it and I'll recant. Otherwise the "jury" on this thread will have decide for themselves, I guess how to weigh my evidence from primary sources (i.e. the actual planning documents) against your personal opinion.

I also produced the phasing table, with no dates. You keep saying the dates are "out the window." They're not.

I never remotely said there would be 1980s sprawl if there was a platform-to-platform transfer; don't be nutty. You're defending Cobra points that even you wouldn't have made and doing so out of context.

He "defended" the notion of a transfer, pointing out how common transfers are everywhere, going on to cite a long list of interchanges (including in Paris and London!), rather than same-direction transfer points. We agree (I think?) that the transfer is less desirable because it's less seamless (though I'd counter it also doesn't really solve the capacity issue if it ends at Finch anyway, but whatever). It's my belief that an extension of the subway to Steeles and LRT north from there is obviously less desirable and (as even you just admitted) and less efficient, in terms of the larger policy goals. I never said it's impossible or causes sprawl or anything of the sort.
(Cobra also proposed an LRT along 7 from RHC to VMC which further goes to show how little he knows what's going on.)

On the sprawl point, I don't know where you're getting that. The transfer issue is TOTALLY separate from the built form issue, OK? The only crossover is in regards to my point that a subway to 7 meets the two policy goals, of facilitating intensification (which an LRT could do, at a lower level) and having a seamless network (which an LRT obviously would not do as well). If you read back, Cobra said it sounded to him like Vaughan was having an "identity crisis," as if that was a bad thing. And I pointed out that, yes, Vaughan is trying to change its identity and it's a good thing that some our crappiest suburbs are trying to build "Metropolitan Centres." nothing to do with the transfer at all and, I think, I a sentiment with which you agree. Stop saying I said it's a zero sum game because - let me be entirely clear - that is not what I believe and not what I said. It's annoying having to produce the same point and make the same assertions over and over and keep being told something I didn't say. Hopefully we're clear for all time now.

Cobra was the one saying, "You think we should spend $6B to eliminate a transfer?" And I said that's absurd. The point is to create a seamless network and facilitate intensification in a corridor and hub. To which he said, "Oh, but you said the entire point of the subway was to create growth in Richmond Hill?" At which point I explained again that, no, the point was not entirely to either eliminate a transfer nor to create growth in some random spot but to achieve a series of policy goals. He didn't get it. I think you do, on this point (even if you believe LRT can largely achieve the same).

Hopefully we can put all those issues aside as resolved and due to long threads and some confusion about what was in response to what.

 

[Leo_Chan]

All this arguing wouldn't be happening if Metrolinx did not re-study the Y1 corridor and propose the Yonge North Subway Extension. Vivanext would be building the Yonge Rapidway from RHC to Finch (maybe Steeles) and be opening soon. However, this alternate scenario may have the Rapidway already at capacity when it opens and require LRT conversion soon.

I'm not saying the Yonge MUST be extended north to RHC, but that it would be wise to overbuild now and plan for the future rather than play catch up later (BRT -> LRT at capacity).