[44 North]

Posting dated and inflated YNSE numbers that aren't being used today, and even more dated renderporn of that silly and completely unbuilt fantasy downtown in Markham... to prop-up your fantasy route and fantasy for two subways to Markham/Richmond Hill that belongs in the fantasy thread? C'mon. And did I say send RL to Leslie/7? Did I say tunnel it? No, I didn't. Right now RLN has effectively become a somewhat upgraded de facto DMLRT, a line that was on YR's radar. And they certainly didn't have it going on Leslie (*sorry wrote that quick. DMLRT was on Leslie in YR. But still doesn't mean I want it deep underground in YR, or that I even want the RL in YR period.) And no official doc dated or otherwise has two subway lines going to Yonge and Hwy 7. So there's no need to post about it here. Or act like the only purpose of RLS/RLN is to relieve the Yonge subway while being completely oblivious to the city-building aspects of it and the former DMLRT. It's actually somewhat disheartening seeing a supposed progressive Torontonian not consider that latter point.

 

[micheal_can]

Why should it ever go to Markham? That is not where the ridership is. The ridership is on Yonge or along the Stoufville GO line. Not in between.

Optimal route for the DRL North to take is to meet the Yonge Line somewhere north of Steeles. You maximize relief to the Yonge Subway by intercepting riders coming from the north of the Yonge Subway (not to mention providing York Region commuters with a much more rapid route downtown than the Yonge Line). I'm going to link a post in the Crosstown thread which covers these same points here.

The question is more so, if taking over the Richmond Hill GO line is feasible. It being looked at as Option 3 in the present study lends some credibility to the corridor, though I would prefer an alignment like this personally.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ma...3d52812cb23d63!8m2!3d43.8561002!4d-79.3370188

The western border of Markham is Yonge- Highway 7- Highway 404.

So, uhm...

 

[Leo_Chan]

We need a Relief Line North North and Relief Line West Fantasy Thread.

 

[WislaHD]

Posting dated and inflated YNSE numbers that aren't being used today, and even more dated renderporn of that silly and completely unbuilt fantasy downtown in Markham... to prop-up your fantasy route and fantasy for two subways to Markham/Richmond Hill that belongs in the fantasy thread? C'mon. And did I say send RL to Leslie/7? Did I say tunnel it? No, I didn't. Right now RLN has effectively become a somewhat upgraded de facto DMLRT, a line that was on YR's radar. And they certainly didn't have it going on Leslie. And no official doc dated or otherwise has two subway lines going to Yonge and Hwy 7. So there's no need to post about it here. Or act like the only purpose of RLS/RLN is to relieve the Yonge subway while being completely oblivious to the city-building aspects of it and the former DMLRT. It's actually somewhat disheartening seeing a supposed progressive Torontonian not consider that latter point.

The city-building aspects of the Relief Line North are obvious and would occur in all but the first alignment being studied. I don't know why it needs special emphasis.

The question is about how to best organize regional mobility. Yes, other objectives such as city building require consideration, but ultimately, I am not interested spending billions of dollars on rapid transit that fails at its primary objective, which is moving mass amounts of people. Or have we not learned our lesson from Sheppard?

I've noticed you are repeating the same points that have been challenged in the Yonge North thread about "inflation" of YNSE numbers (I thought the one debilitating factor preventing that line from being built was that it had too much ridership? Funny that they would inflate the numbers) and that Langstaff Gateway (which is actually moving ahead through the planning process, has the support of Metrolinx, and that renderporn is being actively updated and fleshed out by consultants and city planners) being a fantasy idea.

You can talk about fantasy ideas, but the Relief Line North was a fantasy idea just a few short years ago. If we are serious about providing relief to the Yonge subway, then I have yet to see the argument made against the logic of terminating the Relief Line on Yonge (which point along Yonge can be debated). That is the point where both relief and regional mobility is maximized, with no compromises to city-building that I can see (maybe that renderporn that you think is fantasy could be delivered, no?).

PS. Don Mills becomes Leslie in York Region. Leslie & Hwy-7 is directly north of the Relief Line North corridor.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Ma...3d52812cb23d63!8m2!3d43.8561002!4d-79.3370188

The western border of Markham is Yonge- Highway 7- Highway 404.

So, uhm...

Yes, the eastern half of Thornhill is indeed in Markham. Hopefully it isn't lost on anyone that I was referring to the (majority) part of the municipality east of the 404.

 

[micheal_can]

Snipped

Yes, the eastern half of Thornhill is indeed in Markham. Hopefully it isn't lost on anyone that I was referring to the (majority) part of the municipality east of the 404.

I know, but sometimes semantics are all that matter. Reality, once it connects to one of the current stations of the Sheppard line, I hope that it goes towards the east and draws people from Markham. Just like the western DRL should go into Brampton or Woodbridge, after ending up at the Airport.

We need a Relief Line North North and Relief Line West Fantasy Thread.

West, it should go to the Airport, which is in ... Mississauga.

 

[44 North]

The city-building aspects of the Relief Line North are obvious and would occur in all but the first alignment being studied. I don't know why it needs special emphasis.

The question is about how to best organize regional mobility. Yes, other objectives such as city building require consideration, but ultimately, I am not interested spending billions of dollars on rapid transit that fails at its primary objective, which is moving mass amounts of people. Or have we not learned our lesson from Sheppard?

I've noticed you are repeating the same points that have been challenged in the Yonge North thread about "inflation" of YNSE numbers (I thought the one debilitating factor preventing that line from being built was that it had too much ridership? Funny that they would inflate the numbers) and that Langstaff Gateway (which is actually moving ahead through the planning process, has the support of Metrolinx, and that renderporn is being actively updated and fleshed out by consultants and city planners) being a fantasy idea.

You can talk about fantasy ideas, but the Relief Line North was a fantasy idea just a few short years ago. If we are serious about providing relief to the Yonge subway, then I have yet to see the argument made against the logic of terminating the Relief Line on Yonge (which point along Yonge can be debated). That is the point where both relief and regional mobility is maximized, with no compromises to city-building that I can see (maybe that renderporn that you think is fantasy could be delivered, no?).

PS. Don Mills becomes Leslie in York Region. Leslie & Hwy-7 is directly north of the Relief Line North corridor.

Not repeating any points. Those are dated numbers and they aren't being used today. Want updated numbers read YRNS. You posting practically ancient renders of some weirdo theme-park downtown that's being "fleshed out" doesn't change anything, considering much of it was to be in place within the next decade. Hence some of the (dated) numbers you were showing. How's that going? Where are the development proposals? How many decades does it take to 'flesh something out' lol?

I'm talking about you, posting fantasy ideas, in a thread that now has shortlisted routes. Where's the WislaHD route in Metrolinx's short list? Not here. Where's Toronto's TMP or York Region's TMP that shows your route? Nowhere. Where's the supposed facts that show sending two subways to Yonge/Hwy 7 are the best at relieving Yonge? Nowhere.

 

[WislaHD]

Not repeating any points. Those are dated numbers and they aren't being used today. Want updated numbers read YRNS. You posting practically ancient renders of some weirdo theme-park downtown that's being "fleshed out" doesn't change anything, considering much of it was to be in place within the next decade. Hence some of the (dated) numbers you were showing. How's that going? Where are the development proposals? How many decades does it take to 'flesh something out' lol?

You are free to have that discussion with @TJ O'Pootertoot in the Yonge North Extension thread. God knows I've read dozens of pages of you debating these same points with him already.

I'm talking about you, posting fantasy ideas, in a thread that now has shortlisted routes. Where's the WislaHD route in Metrolinx's short list? Not here. Where's Toronto's TMP or York Region's TMP that shows your route? Nowhere. Where's the supposed facts that show sending two subways to Yonge/Hwy 7 are the best at relieving Yonge? Nowhere.

My fantasy map includes using the Finch Hydro Corridor to get onto the Richmond Hill GO corridor, but that is just a personal preference because I believe the line should interchange with Sheppard at Don Mills rather than Leslie. The option of using the GO Corridor is actually listed there as option 3, as one of the shortlisted routes. The map (here) clearly describes the study area in the dotted lines. Hopefully they consider northern extensions and eventual terminus of the line as part of their scope for their corridor selection.

If you want facts, I will list you the current daily ridership of various surface routes:

• TTC - Steeles East - 28,300
• TTC - Steeles West - 26,700
• TTC - Yonge North - 4,500
• TTC - Cummer - 8,700
• TTC - Drewry - 3,500
• TTC - Finch East - 23,800
  
• VIVA - Yonge Blue - 18,955
• VIVA - HWY-7 Purple - 9,060

That totals to 114,815 daily riders in 2015 ridership numbers. For comparison, the 2031 Relief Line is projected to have 177,100 daily riders.

You want to tell me that there is no point in discussing relieving the Yonge subway of some of that ridership? As someone who gets on the subway every morning at Eglinton (if I am lucky to get on), I would love to have that discussion.

 

[44 North]

You are free to have that discussion with @TJ O'Pootertoot in the Yonge North Extension thread. God knows I've read dozens of pages of you debating these same points with him already.

Considering said individual spent literal years claiming the entire capacity of Line 1 is needed just for a single station at Longbridge-Langstaff, a completely ludicrous notion that defies logic, there'd be no point. But that thread too isn't fantasy either so your dual subway idea shouldn't be discussed there. One subway extension and RH GO upgrades are in all the plans for that area, not two subways to Yonge/7.

If you want facts, I will list you the current daily ridership of various surface routes:

• TTC - Steeles East - 28,300
• TTC - Steeles West - 26,700
• TTC - Yonge North - 4,500
• TTC - Cummer - 8,700
• TTC - Drewry - 3,500
• TTC - Finch East - 23,800
  
• VIVA - Yonge Blue - 18,955
• VIVA - HWY-7 Purple - 9,060

That totals to 114,815 daily riders in 2015 ridership numbers. For comparison, the 2031 Relief Line is projected to have 177,100 daily riders.

You want to tell me that there is no point in discussing relieving the Yonge subway of some of that ridership? As someone who gets on the subway every morning at Eglinton (if I am lucky to get on), I would love to have that discussion.

Those numbers don't prove that your fantasy (which again isn't in the RLN shortlist nor even in the Mlinx study area) is the best route, or the best at relieving Line 1, or show that there's no "in between" ridership within the ~10km from Yonge to Stouff GO as you stated on the previous page.

How about listing the costs and net negatives of shutting down twelve km of GO line, a like-new yard, three GO stations (one which is new, another u/c set to open next year). When you 'covered' your fantasy line in other threads you'd stated how fine you are with these things, so maybe set up a picket line at 404/Bloomington and let Metrolinx know how wrong they are to have spent $200M in the last few years. Bring your map.

 

[WislaHD]

Extending the Relief Line north to Sheppard would have been considered fantasy in the Relief Line thread just 3 years ago. Yet here we are.

Northern extension beyond Sheppard is disallowed as discussion? The RLN map has arrows pointing to possible northern extensions beyond the study area.

If anything, it presently has more institutional merit for discussion than the Relief Line West does.

 

[44 North]

Extending the Relief Line north to Sheppard would have been considered fantasy in the Relief Line thread just 3 years ago. Yet here we are.

Northern extension beyond Sheppard is disallowed as discussion? The RLN map has arrows pointing to possible northern extensions beyond the study area.

If anything, it presently has more institutional merit for discussion than the Relief Line West does.

Totally fine discussing northern extensions, those arrows are there for a reason. Even ancillary ideas like utilizing Bala Sub, which sort of ties with the 5min RH GO express service proposed in the Big Move. Though these are all to an extent. My issue is with your fantasy specifically, that you have two massive subway projects going to a single point in the outer suburbs, that it's well beyond the study area, your contentedness with the backwards idea of shuttering 12km of track+3 stations+layover facility in the GO network, your claim that this 100% provides most relief when there's no evidence of such, and to bolster all this your willingness to disregard city-building aspects (like offered with the preceding DMLRT) or logic (like claiming ridership only surrounds Yonge and Stouff GO - nothing in between).

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You are free to have that discussion with @TJ O'Pootertoot in the Yonge North Extension thread. God knows I've read dozens of pages of you debating these same points with him already.

I see I'm being invited to all sorts of fun.
Reading back a bit - and I know this is shocking - I think you're each right and wrong about certain things.

For one, as we know, I think 44's out to lunch on Yonge/7. Naturally, I never claimed "the entire capacity of Line 1 is needed just for a single station" but he has -as we can see - something of a blind spot in terms of understanding the difference between ridership modeling and community master planning. The entire point of the mobility hub is the convergence of transit (GO/Viva/TTC subway) at a single point. He's right that the ridership numbers are getting outdated at this point, though I don't know why anyone would think they're going DOWN when we're already seeing development proposals at Steeles that exceed what's envisioned for Langstaff.

That said, I don't see the point of bending the Relief Life North over to Yonge and I think WislaHD underestimates the ridership potential at 404/7. For one, as 44North pointed out, the Don Mills LRT was going to go there. Secondly, the key to a successful line is connecting to employment. The sheer number of people working at that node justifies traversing the relative lack of latent ridership between Finch (Seneca Campus) and 7 - which, BTW, also has a Seneca College campus. Off-hand it strikes me an LRT would probably be sufficient north of Finch (if not north of Sheppard), but to suggest it's not a good transit terminal because there's a (huge) auto-oriented business park really misses the mark, IMHO.

Plus, it would have the benefit of intercepting Viva riders coming from east of the 404, keeping them off the Yonge extension. Then you'd have ridership being distributed rather nicely, and the Yonge/7 subway would really only be drawing in people from that immediate mobility hub and a fairly central corridor, with people west of, say, Dufferin, being funneled to Spadina and east of Bayview to the RL (depending, obviously, where people are going to/from; but creating multiple N/S options, any way you slice it).

So, you're both partly wrong and partly right, IMHO

 

[micheal_can]

Totally fine discussing northern extensions, those arrows are there for a reason. Even ancillary ideas like utilizing Bala Sub, which sort of ties with the 5min RH GO express service proposed in the Big Move. Though these are all to an extent. My issue is with your fantasy specifically, that you have two massive subway projects going to a single point in the outer suburbs, that it's well beyond the study area, your contentedness with the backwards idea of shuttering 12km of track+3 stations+layover facility in the GO network, your claim that this 100% provides most relief when there's no evidence of such, and to bolster all this your willingness to disregard city-building aspects (like offered with the preceding DMLRT) or logic (like claiming ridership only surrounds Yonge and Stouff GO - nothing in between).

We have not much to go on besides the plans to go to Sheppard. Should a new thread be started to discuss the merits of the extension north of Sheppard?

 

[Leo_Chan]

We have not much to go on besides the plans to go to Sheppard. Should a new thread be started to discuss the merits of the extension north of Sheppard?

That’s what I suggested.

 

[micheal_can]

That’s what I suggested.

Why? Until this line has started construction, lets use it for all of the DRL north of Bloor extensions. Lets discuss each of the options that they have laid out. Lets look further north to possible extensions into York.

Or, we could just talk about what has already been talked about ....

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe when the Relief Line reaches Sheppard (Consumers Road Station?), it splits into two branches. Branch B continues north under Victoria Park Avenue to the sprawl of Markham, while Branch B follows the "old" Line 4 Sheppard to Yonge-Sheppard Station and further west to Sheppard West Station.