[ehlow]

Well, I live JUST north of Yonge and it's no mean shakes on this side either. you can stand at Yonge/Steeles and see 5-10 busses pass by in a MINUTE if you're timing is right. And that's without getting into the whole sub-issue of double fares and YRT buses not being able to pick up TTC riders waiting for a bus on the south side etc. etc.

Based on the fact that you're by far the #1 defender of Yonge North ext to Highway 7, and that you hate the idea of Yonge extended to Steeles but no further, I would've guessed that you lived and/or owned property at Yonge & Highway 7 or something.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, that's just what I would've guessed based on you being mainly focused on this one issue.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Well, I live JUST north of Yonge and it's no mean shakes on this side either. you can stand at Yonge/Steeles and see 5-10 busses pass by in a MINUTE if you're timing is right. And that's without getting into the whole sub-issue of double fares and YRT buses not being able to pick up TTC riders waiting for a bus on the south side etc. etc.


But moving the line to Steeles does not substantially alter that and, again, it's at the expense of intensification to the north. I thought we were past the point of building transit without considering development patterns (but, as you point out, then there's Scarborough). Spending all that time and money to get buses off the street on ONE side of Steeles, while inhibiting Markham's (and vaughan's and Richmond Hill's) ability to build denser, transit-oriented communities strikes me as absurd, honestly. The development potential from Steeles to Highway 7 is greater than that from Finch to Steeles, and by a fair margin.

I agree that it is absurd. Like I said before, the DRL and Yonge are the only worthwhile subway projects in Toronto. They both deserve to be built in their entirety. But if there really is a a limited amount of money to allocate to Yonge, it's logical to terminate it at Steeles where it can at least help to alleviate bus congestion. Completely cancelling the Yonge extension just because it can't go to RHC doesn't strike me as being particularly useful.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

looks like you are Steve Del Duca? Never thought an individual Joe can speak out so affirmatively if the province has the money or not or if the subway is going to be end at Steeles or not.

He's not pulling this out of his backside.

The Province has something like $8bn to pay for the next wave of transit expansion. That money has to pay for the DRL, Yonge North, RER and various other BRTs/LRTs. Unless RER or DRL is cancelled, there's no way that there is going to be enough money to build Yonge North with a RHC terminal.

 

[minilude]

The province is still working on its timetable. There is newspaper article saying Smart Track could delay DRL, but who knows. Looks like you all have crystal balls that next wave = RER and DRL, but the fact is that only RER is affirmative so far.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I'm just saying that compared to other municipalities in the GTHA that are asking for Provincial funding for their priority projects, York Region is asking for significantly more per person than anywhere else. If York Region were to ask for a 1/3rd funding split, which would bring the per person Provincial contribution in line with other areas, then I would have no problem with it at all.

I just want to see Provincial transit dollars distributed equitably. Most areas of the GTHA are in the neighbourhood of $1000-$1500 per person for their priority projects. If a municipality determines that it's needs fall beyond what that per person allotment, then I think the municipality should be responsible for paying for the difference themselves, or putting in a request for federal funding, like Toronto did with the Scarborough Subway.

Fair enough, but equitably is very relative. York Region shouldn't be punished for going all in on transit. If Markham is willing to plan one of the densest, most ambitious suburban communities on the continent (you know, hypothetically), it's absurd to deny them that because it's not "fair" to some other municipality. See, that's how you get a bunch of city councillors saying, "Oh, downtown has SO MUCH transit; Scarborough DESERVES some too." No, it doesn't. That's fair.

Allocating on some abstract per person basis, irrespective of geography, official plans etc. strikes me as hugely UNfair, though it reminds me of Tim Hudak's idea to redistribute the gas tax so every municipality could have at least a little, that being more FAIR than Toronto et al hogging it for their selfish transit needs.

There's nothing wrong with the old 1/3 model. I'm sure if the feds and province each kicked in $1B (and a bit more, by now), York Region would happily pay its share. I don't know how many more projects Toronto can afford given how they did the Scarborough funding but it's the upper-level funding that's the obstacle now (and Toronto's capacity concerns).

Based on the fact that you're by far the #1 defender of Yonge North ext to Highway 7, and that you hate the idea of Yonge extended to Steeles but no further, I would've guessed that you lived and/or owned property at Yonge & Highway 7 or something.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, that's just what I would've guessed based on you being mainly focused on this one issue.

Actually, I've done a lot of writing and research about transit and regional governance and, yes, this project. I bitch about Metrolinx, Presto, Spadina and other regional issues when relevant.

That said, sure it would be nice to be near the subway but I've also lived for a long time near Steeles (on both sides) and seen first-hand how these cross-border issues manifest themselves. I've felt for a long time that the border was obsolete except as a line someone drew on a map. People in Willowdale have more in common (and shop in, and visit etc.) with Thornhill than with the Beaches, except for where their taxes go. By any objective measure, the extension makes sense, regardless of whether I can use it or not.

I agree that it is absurd. Like I said before, the DRL and Yonge are the only worthwhile subway projects in Toronto. They both deserve to be built in their entirety. But if there really is a a limited amount of money to allocate to Yonge, it's logical to terminate it at Steeles where it can at least help to alleviate bus congestion. Completely cancelling the Yonge extension just because it can't go to RHC doesn't strike me as being particularly useful.

Well, that's where we're at now and, yes, it stinks. I still don't see the point of Steeles as a half-measure. It's the same logic that gave us a castrated Sheppard line. When it comes to transit and planning "half-assed" is not necessarily better than nothing. I really don't see how it works because York Region would be rightfully furious...a BRT is pointless now and I don't see how you appease York Region by creating an LRT merely to go from Steeles to 7. If it's an interim measure, maybe it works politically but as I see it, yes, you can say "Given the limited $, it makes sense," but it still doesn't in terms of planning or transit or (perhaps most importantly) politics.

When there is funding, it will be interesting as all getout to watch things go down, that's for sure.

 

[wopchop]

I'm just saying that compared to other municipalities in the GTHA that are asking for Provincial funding for their priority projects, York Region is asking for significantly more per person than anywhere else. If York Region were to ask for a 1/3rd funding split, which would bring the per person Provincial contribution in line with other areas, then I would have no problem with it at all.

I just want to see Provincial transit dollars distributed equitably. Most areas of the GTHA are in the neighbourhood of $1000-$1500 per person for their priority projects. If a municipality determines that it's needs fall beyond what that per person allotment, then I think the municipality should be responsible for paying for the difference themselves, or putting in a request for federal funding, like Toronto did with the Scarborough Subway.

Toronto's priority project is the DRL. If Metrolinx covers $4 billion of it, which seems to be what has been indicated, that would put it at around $1500 per person in Toronto.

This is a poor measure for need, especially as Peel and York region are expected to be roughly equal in population by 2031.

Simply dividing transit dollars on a per-person basis doesn't make much sense to me. You could have two towns with equal populations, but one could be spread out over three times the land area. Suddenly, the needs of both towns become a little different, and dividing dollars up per person doesn't make sense any more. Or what if we had a limited pool of funding, and two towns. One town is much wealthier than the other, but the poorer town needs a more expensive transit solution. In order to receive the infrastructure necessary for their town, how can the latter be reasonably expected to pay the difference in price? The wealthy town could agree to a funding split, propose a local tax for their cheaper project, and take the limited money, depriving the other town of necessary funds. Simply basing funding on a per person basis seems fair, but I don't think reality is that simple.

I understand the political need for fairness, but it should be based on the measurable benefits of the project, with ridership being one of the most important indicators. If we looked at the two projects that you mentioned earlier, the Hurontario LRT is expected to move around 25,000 people a day. The Yonge North Extension will be moving that many people in it's peak period alone. So yes, one solution is going to cost more money than the other.

 

[ehlow]

TJ O'Pootertoot:

I have to admit I've very surprised to hear that you live near Yonge & Steeles given that you really seem to hate the idea of a subway extension only going to Steeles rather than up to Highway 7.

 

[gweed123]

To TJ and wopchop: You both make some very valid points. Certainly a municipality that prioritizes density, especially along planned transit corridors, deserves financial support from other levels of government in the matter. I just think that it's unfair that one area can make an ask for 3x as much funding as another area when they have roughly the same population.

As for basing funding purely on population, I agree it's a poor metric on it's own. What I've proposed in the past is determining Provincial transit funding per region over a 10 year period using a combination of population and transit ridership. Each region's share of the GTHA population and ridership would be expressed as a percentage, with the average of their population and ridership percentage being used to determine their overall percentage.

Say their slice of the pie is 10%, of the $8 billion Metrolinx has for the Next Wave, that region would get $800 million of it to spend on whatever priority project(s) they have identified. If their priority project is more than what their allotment is, they can either cover the difference themselves, or seek federal funding. If you want a higher percentage, enact transit-friendly policies that will boost ridership and get you a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

TJ O'Pootertoot:

I have to admit I've very surprised to hear that you live near Yonge & Steeles given that you really seem to hate the idea of a subway extension only going to Steeles rather than up to Highway 7.

I live closer to Steeles than 7 and always have. I'm not ENTIRELY selfish.
20 years ago I probably would have argued vociferously that the best plan is to bring the subway up to Steeles and go over to York and then south, completing the loop. There's just too much growth (especially planned) around Highway 7 to do that today. It would be obsolete before it's built, even if it's all we can afford. We can afford as much as we're willing to pay for. Gas is below 90 cents; a perfect time for a gas tax of, say, 5 cents a litre, going direct to Metrolinx, dontcha think?

To TJ and wopchop: You both make some very valid points. Certainly a municipality that prioritizes density, especially along planned transit corridors, deserves financial support from other levels of government in the matter. I just think that it's unfair that one area can make an ask for 3x as much funding as another area when they have roughly the same population.

I don't see anything unfair about ASKING. It's not like a kid who already has an Xbox asking for a Playstation. It's more like a kid asking for a bike instead of asking to borrow your car.
I especially don't think it's unfair in that I believe in planning and if someone plans a community around transit, obviously they're going to ask for transit $. It doesn't mean Peel and Durham etc. aren't getting just as much money at the end of the day, it's just going to roads which we treat as a fait accompli, so no one has to "ask."

As for basing funding purely on population, I agree it's a poor metric on it's own. What I've proposed in the past is determining Provincial transit funding per region over a 10 year period using a combination of population and transit ridership. Each region's share of the GTHA population and ridership would be expressed as a percentage, with the average of their population and ridership percentage being used to determine their overall percentage.

No offence but my counter-proposal is to entirely throw out % of funding as a measure. How about we charge Metrolinx to actually build The Big Move and prioritize projects, irrespective of their location, using objective data about ridership and planning objectives. Then we can put the money where it will have the most impact, do the most good and otherwise accomplish the ostensible goals of the existing legislation, irrespective of who thinks it's FAIR.

Of course, we know that politics in transit planning is a huge problem and it's perhaps not as simple as I make out to rectify that but it should certainly be the goal because if the Yonge extension is a crucial project (or Smart Track or the Mississauga LRT or whatever), I don't really care what % of the pie the mayor of Pickering thinks he should be getting. If he and his region have an important project on paper, its importance to the community and larger network will warrant its funding. If it doesn't objectively warrant funding, I just don't really care how s/he feels about someone else's hard work being rewarded.

 

[xtremesniper]

Ergo, stopping the line at Steeles is an absolute waste of time and money. It doesn't address regional planning reality, it doesn't address the reality of how people move in and around the region, it doesn't do anything to meet Toronto's planning objectives either and it is quite literally counter to the explicit plans the province has already established for the network. Starting to dig to move the line 2 km, while stopping it like 3km short of where major E/W transit is converging is and around which major intensification is planned....well, it doesn't make sense to me, I'll say.

...

I've said it all before, but now I've said it again. how long til I say it again? Time will tell.

I felt the need to quote/re-post this because I've been following this thread for long enough to see it (as you said) loop over and over and over like a broken record. It's quite sad, too, considering it just confirms that ever since the initial plan for the Yonge extension came out we've had no tangible (or even non-tangible) progress to discuss. Instead, we just keep talking about feasibility when it was already deemed to be feasible when it was first proposed.

These days I just observe this thread and shake my head. While the idiots running Toronto continue to bicker and go back and forth in their game of political musical chairs until they have someone to blame (like when the province steps in to stop the insanity), we're still waiting for someone/anyone to take this line seriously.

And lest we forget that the sole purpose of this line is not just to get people downtown. That's what the GO is for. Most people forget that there are lots of people who use transit to get to places that are not downtown, myself included.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I felt the need to quote/re-post this because I've been following this thread for long enough to see it (as you said) loop over and over and over like a broken record. It's quite sad, too, considering it just confirms that ever since the initial plan for the Yonge extension came out we've had no tangible (or even non-tangible) progress to discuss. Instead, we just keep talking about feasibility when it was already deemed to be feasible when it was first proposed.

These days I just observe this thread and shake my head. While the idiots running Toronto continue to bicker and go back and forth in their game of political musical chairs until they have someone to blame (like when the province steps in to stop the insanity), we're still waiting for someone/anyone to take this line seriously.

And lest we forget that the sole purpose of this line is not just to get people downtown. That's what the GO is for. Most people forget that there are lots of people who use transit to get to places that are not downtown, myself included.

That last point is crucial. Royson James actually has a pretty good article in today's Star about fact-based transit planning but when talking about subways he goes on and on about how many people they bring downtown. He points out, for example, that Vaughan is getting a subway but only 9% of Vaughan residents work downtown. And so what? People from Richmond Hill and Brampton are also allowed to use it. And even if they weren't, how many people from Vaughan go to Yorkdale? Or U of T? It's not all about Union Station and one of the fundamental problems with the overall network is that it funnels everything into Union Station, which is why people on this thread can (every now and then) say, "Yonge/7 doesn't need a subway because people can take GO." The flaw there is equally obvious.

There are many principles embedded in The Big Move and Places to Grow but a key one is establishing centres OUTSIDE of downtown so the entire network isn't geared to funnelling people from their homes outside of downtown to where the jobs are, around Union Station. Subways (and new RT, in general) is a big part of that and going on about how only 9% of people from Vaughan work south of Bloor is silly without looking at how many people from Vaughan go south of Steeles, say, more than once a week. I'm guessing it's a lot higher than 9%.

I've said it before and I know it's a bit of a mind game but I say this sincerely to anyone who thinks that an extension to Steeles makes sense. Pretend, for the sake of argument, that Toronto's border was at Major Mac, and not at Steeles. Then look at these maps and tell me, honestly, why your idea makes any sense at all. I don't say it sarcastically at all; I just think we're all slave to many outdated concepts and seeing past abstract borders is a good start. It may be weird to think of the GTA as more than just the 416, or to imagine a region with many centres instead of one that must be served and served and served beyond all reason, but if you can take a deep breath, take a step back and use your imagination things can look a lot different.

(This map, BTW, is from Neptis's cool mapping ap. This one shows the full build-out of The Big Move and the black dots are the Places to Grow growth centres.

Yonge/7 is the black dot in the top centre; Steeles would be the white dot below it [and the black dot below that is North York Centre]. I think it graphically shows [literally and figuratively] why the line has to go to where everything is converging, instead of 3km to the south but YMMV...)

 

[dunkalunk]

I agree that it is absurd. Like I said before, the DRL and Yonge are the only worthwhile subway projects in Toronto. They both deserve to be built in their entirety. But if there really is a a limited amount of money to allocate to Yonge, it's logical to terminate it at Steeles where it can at least help to alleviate bus congestion. Completely cancelling the Yonge extension just because it can't go to RHC doesn't strike me as being particularly useful.

If through the RER-ification of the GO network (electrification, station relocation to arterials, increased frequency), the Richmond Hill line with a few additional stations and increased frequency could easily become an effective releiver for the Yonge line. It would absolutely be less expensive than an extension of the Yonge line northward.

I also agree that if the funds aren't there to extend the Yonge line to RHC/Thornhill, than a one-stop extension to Steeles does make quite a bit of sense.

I would argue that there is another subway extention that do make sense outside of the DRL. A westward extension of the Bloor-Danforth to The East Mall and construction of a better Park and Ride GO/Subway station would be on my list.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

If through the RER-ification of the GO network (electrification, station relocation to arterials, increased frequency), the Richmond Hill line with a few additional stations and increased frequency could easily become an effective releiver for the Yonge line. It would absolutely be less expensive than an extension of the Yonge line northward.

I also agree that if the funds aren't there to extend the Yonge line to RHC/Thornhill, than a one-stop extension to Steeles does make quite a bit of sense.

I should do like xtremesniper and just stop watching the thread spin its own wheels, repeating things that have been said ad infinitum already.
No and no, is my response.

First, because the RH GO line goes through the Don Valley so unless there's major intensification planned for the Evergreen Brickworks there is nowhere to add more stations. It works as a Union Station express and nothing more, and that will always be the case.

Second, because (for, like, the 10-thousandth time) the growth centre at Hwy 7 is specifically designed with the capacity for RER aaaaand subway in mind. No subway, no intensification, more sprawl. Period.

All due respect, I'm curious why you think Steeles makes quite a bit of sense. No one's pulled it off yet, IMHO. "Because it helps the TTC's buses," doesn't count, btw.

People keep talking about bus frequencies and relieving the Yonge line; that is NOT the raison d'etre for the extension. Regional planning and suburban intensification is. Think a little bigger and it will all become clear.

 

[WislaHD]

I think this idea that commuter rail (GO RER) is strictly an express route to Union station is quite limiting. That is how it is right now granted, but its not what it could be.

I envision our commuter rail lines having interchanges with Sheppard, Eglinton, St. Clair, Bloor, DRL and yes, Union. From those interchange stations, a rider can then take the subway to their destination. A RH GO commuter would take the RH GO line to a new Eglinton-Don Mills GO station, and then take the Crosstown to their destination at Yonge-Eglinton. I reject the notion that the RH GO commuter must take the line to Union and then travel north to Bloor or Eglinton.

As a sidenote, I am not saying this as an exclusion of the Yonge North extension. On the contrary, I believe this only can work with sufficient interchange connections and supporting transit (subway, LRT or even BRT) lines. Successful transit planning is about giving commuters options on how best to reach their destination.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

I think this idea that commuter rail (GO RER) is strictly an express route to Union station is quite limiting. That is how it is right now granted, but its not what it could be.

I didn't say RER is an express route to Union. I said the RICHMOND HILL line, even with all-day, two-way service can only ever be that for the simple reality of its geography. The suggestion above that you could add stations is nutty.

Obviously a route like the lakeshore lines is a totally different situation but every time someone suggests RER on the RH line negates the need for a subway, it drives me a little closer to outright crazy