[unimaginative2]

Are you talking about this project? Because the studies predicted a peak point volume north of Steeles at around what Sheppard pulls in. That's a recipe for huge losses. I don't think "successful" is the proper way to describe it if dollars and ridership are going to be any one of the key indicators.

Sorry...how busy do you want it to be? Crammed full? No subway line in the world is full at its last stop. If it were, it would be a complete failure since nobody could get on at any of the other stops. If it's as busy as Sheppard at its last couple stops, I'd say that's a very busy subway line! Get out and travel a bit. In New York, for example, none of the outer terminal stations except possibly Flushing-Main would be as busy as that. Same with Berlin, Munich, etc.

 

[unimaginative2]

That's funny, because last time I heard anybody knock on this project, it's because it will add too many riders to the system and clog it, hence why TTC and many people on these forums say that Yonge should be built alongside a DRL.

Get back to me when you make your mind up whether it is a money loser, or attracts too many people.

It's the same thing we've heard from the transit "advocates" who've been bashing the Canada Line for years. One minute it's going to be a horribly underused failure, the next minute it's a massively overcrowded disaster. The answer is, if it isn't one of their pet projects, it's wrong, evil, and oh-so-bad.

 

[Paleo]

Sorry...how busy do you want it to be? Crammed full? No subway line in the world is full at its last stop. If it were, it would be a complete failure since nobody could get on at any of the other stops. If it's as busy as Sheppard at its last couple stops, I'd say that's a very busy subway line! Get out and travel a bit. In New York, for example, none of the outer terminal stations except possibly Flushing-Main would be as busy as that. Same with Berlin, Munich, etc.

No really? Tell me something I don't know. But if there's only going to be 1,000 to 2,000 pph moving through a corridor at the very end, it should be a cheaper and lower mode like a bus and the end point of the subway shouldn't be there.

 

[BMO]

No really? Tell me something I don't know. But if there's only going to be 1,000 to 2,000 pph moving through a corridor at the very end, it should be a cheaper and lower mode like a bus and the end point of the subway shouldn't be there.

I really don't know how anybody can advocate stopping the subway at Steeles (forever). In any basic planning text, etc, you find that ridership is determined by a combination of trip generators, destinations and access to transit. Stopping the line, and missing one of the biggest planned growth hubs at highway 7 and Yonge, which would include: subway, GO (bus/rail), future 407 transitway, highway 407, Viva BRT, local YRT, is just ludicrous.

I don't think there's another area in the GTA or even the country, where you'd have such a medley of transportation options connection the entire region together.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I really don't know how anybody can advocate stopping the subway at Steeles (forever). In any basic planning text, etc, you find that ridership is determined by a combination of trip generators, destinations and access to transit. Stopping the line, and missing one of the biggest planned growth hubs at highway 7 and Yonge, which would include: subway, GO (bus/rail), future 407 transitway, highway 407, Viva BRT, local YRT, is just ludicrous.

I don't think there's another area in the GTA or even the country, where you'd have such a medley of transportation options connection the entire region together.

A Sheppard Subway to STC would connect with (not all at one location but within a fair radius) Agincourt Go Station, Scarborough SRT (whatever that line becomes in the future), VIVA BRT at Don Mills station (could be moved to STC), YRT (rte 90), and highway 401. Sheppard is also a designated growth corridor with intensification planned for Sheppard/Yonge, Sheppard/Allen, and STC. So it's not like they are not comparable.

 

[Dan416]

GO has buses that run counter-peak. Many times they're faster than the trains that they serve as a substitute for.

Can I count out people who refuse to consider buses as an option?

In my experience the GO buses only match the train speed when they're express (i.e. point-to-point), and definitely not when they're local.

I'd much rather go for trains on Milton every hour than buses every half as they are now.

 

[CDL.TO]

In my experience the GO buses only match the train speed when they're express (i.e. point-to-point), and definitely not when they're local.

I'd much rather go for trains on Milton every hour than buses every half as they are now.

I can understand people who would prefer a train to a bus. After all, I agree!

I can't understand people who declare that "there are no transit options!" when there is a pretty comfortable and speedy bus service available.

On a related note, there's a real problem with GO rail services ending in the AM before road congestion has cleared. If the last inbound train is at 8:30am, train buses are probably just going to be stuck in traffic for the next hour or so. That is NOT a substitute for rail.

 

[unimaginative2]

No really? Tell me something I don't know. But if there's only going to be 1,000 to 2,000 pph moving through a corridor at the very end, it should be a cheaper and lower mode like a bus and the end point of the subway shouldn't be there.

A subway's ridership should gradually build. If you only try to run it where it's completely full, you'll wind up with a tiny stub. This "progression through modes" thing is a bizarre Toronto fetish. Transit planners in virtually every city with successful transit around the world would disagree with you. For a North American example, look at New York. Save the 7 train, none of its lines are very busy near their terminals. Same for Berlin, Munich, London in most cases. In most cities, if a subway line is busy at its terminal, that's a strong argument that it should be extended!

 

[Dandy Horse]

Re: GO buses vs trains: Im just speaking from experience here on the train from Newmarket to union vs the bus, the train goes faster (by a long shot) during rush hour, and at night I'd say after the last train leaves at 6pm til about 9pm, the bus is slower than the train, but the rest of the time (later at night, contra-flow during the day), the bus is actually faster, because it goes all the way to Aurora on the 404 and only becomes local service after that (where you can get off at a number of stops). I do, however, think that people who reverse commute to places like this simply say that all the trains are going the wrong way, so thats why they drive, while the real reason they drive is much more complicated.

 

[CDL.TO]

Re: GO buses vs trains: Im just speaking from experience here on the train from Newmarket to union vs the bus, the train goes faster (by a long shot) during rush hour, and at night I'd say after the last train leaves at 6pm til about 9pm, the bus is slower than the train, but the rest of the time (later at night, contra-flow during the day), the bus is actually faster, because it goes all the way to Aurora on the 404 and only becomes local service after that (where you can get off at a number of stops).

That bus to Aurora always runs express (route 65). The train to Aurora takes 52min, and the first bus after the last train takes 50min. To East Gwillimbury, the train takes 1hr 3min, when the first bus takes 50min.

As I said, many times the bus is faster than than train. Probably not most of the time.

There's a separate bus route that serves King City, Maple, and Rutherford (route 63). That's one of the other issues with the train-bus. You usually can't take it between stops, it only goes to or from Union.

 

[xtremesniper]

In most cities, if a subway line is busy at its terminal, that's a strong argument that it should be extended!

Bingo. I don't get to travel much but when I was in Boston, they seemed to have this methodology down really well. I had to ride 3 of their lines to the near end during the span of my visit, and the ridership gradually weened as we got closer to the end of the line. I think they had the distance vs demand ratio done just right.

And this, for a subway system that spans many cities because Boston proper itself is so small compared to Toronto proper. No regional divide there, and they still had regional rail to supplement the subways along the same corridors.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I don't get this. Is this not what GO is for - commuting? Not to take the subway pass the city borders. And then there are those that will say there are no borders. There are.

By that logic, Torontonians shouldn't be allowed on GO and there shouldn't be GO stations outside downtown, any more than there should be a subway crossing Steeles. Are you offering this trade?

OR would you prefer to recognize the need for a hierarchy of transit services to deal with commuting population that is increasingly hetereogenous, destination-wise?

Interestingly, given the discussion of ridership at terminal stations, the Yonge extension should have very high ridership at its two final stations, likely not right at opening but within 10-15 years. I'll bet that Richmond Hill Centre station people pulls in more than Downsview does, to the extent that's relevant.

Even if, on opening day, the Yonge extension didn't have a single rider more than it does today, it would STILL be worth it. You have thousands of buses and thousands of cars travelling from Hwy 7 (and north) down to Finch every day. The benefits to the environment, the road itself, and to traffic might not be worth $3-billion to Joe Taxpayer but they're certainly worth a lot, IMHO.

Instead of cramming in everyone at Finch and having everyone drive down there you're spreading out existing ridership across several stations and moving the congregration point north (presumably to a new lot at Langstaff). All those people worried they won't get a subway seat at Finch should at least have a much easier time getting a parking spot there

 

[lead82]

The one nice thing about the Ynge extension is that the new terminal can be built to handle three trains so as to reduce the waiting time in the tunnels. Some days it can take up to 15mins just to get to Finch from Sheppard. The trains just sit in the tunnel and crawl the last 2km. TTC needs to learn how to turn around trains briskly. My main concern aboutnextending it north is how will the increased ridereship affect downtown stations. More riders will be cramped onto the narrow stations for the afternoon rush. Already there isnt any room tomfit everyone and it causes major delays as people try to cram onto the trains. I wonder if it may be worthwhile to look at building an express bus service from financial district to Danforth and Broadview/Pape area to help relieve the Yonge line. An express bus may attract riders if the trip can cut down on their commute time, until the DRL is built by year 2100.

 

[Dandy Horse]

this is an important project, but is contingent on a DRL. thats something I think everyone can agree on. Remember, right now were experiencing crazy amounts of people at Y&B and st. george, and the vaughan extension hasn't even opened yet...

 

[GenerationW]

this is an important project, but is contingent on a DRL. thats something I think everyone can agree on. Remember, right now were experiencing crazy amounts of people at Y&B and st. george, and the vaughan extension hasn't even opened yet...

It's theoretically contingent on the DRL, but it's entirely possible York Region will push through Yonge (and I bet they will) without Toronto getting a DRL until years or decades later, or not getting it at all.