[Cobra]

So if the DRL got built beforehand would everyone be OK with the Yonge Extension being built? Or is it really just that you don't think this corridor deserves a subway? I'm really still unsure as to whether this is a capacity argument or an issue with the utilization of a future extension?

I'm fine with it if there's an updated report saying that subway is warranted.

 

[drum118]

I'm fine with it if there's an updated report saying that subway is warranted.

It will have to be part of the 2nd Yonge line if the ridership support the extension. It will be more of an express line than a local taking a different route south of St Clair since there is no room on Yonge to support 2 lines.

 

[44 North]

So if the DRL got built beforehand would everyone be OK with the Yonge Extension being built? Or is it really just that you don't think this corridor deserves a subway? I'm really still unsure as to whether this is a capacity argument or an issue with the utilization of a future extension?

I'm not even considering the capacity issue. Yonge needs a relief line thirty years ago, end of story.

But re: the extension - my personal issue is two-fold: cost, and scarce funding. I'd love for subways to be built everywhere. But the reality is that heavy rail subways are really really expensive (particularly since it's been decided that they can only ever be built deep underground). What's more is that it seems increasingly obvious that there's no chance in hell that we can ever build/operate all the projects listed in the Big Move this century (even if we had the funding tools). Do the math, see how far behind we are, then look at the new ideas cropping up and the region's continued outward expansion. Obviously sacrifices will have to be made, which will naturally create strife.

So I'm of the opinion that we could look for per km cost savings by using alternate modes that were never explored, and which could provide a bigger bang for the buck (while providing virtually identical service, capacity, and land value increases). The savings can be used to extend the corridor's rapid transit even further, or go into other Big Move projects like RER.

With regards to Line 1, it seems apparent the extensions on either end (TYSSE and YNSE) aren't enough for York Region. They want more (and really, what city wouldn't?). Vaughan is considering plans for an extension up to Wonderland, and York Region is mulling extending up Yonge to Major Mack. I'd argue that instead of such polarized extremes as upgrading BRT plans to a 6-car deep bore heavy rail subway (i.e the least expensive transit vs the hands-down most expensive transit), we could look for something in between. And something more fitting with the suburban built form and their massive roadway allowances. Similar to the Crosstown, or S(L)RT. Some parts underground, some trenched, some elevated, some in-median perhaps.

 

[rbt]

The issue with Metrolinx Richmond Hill expansion isn't just the bit near the USRC - there's the Doncaster Diamond separation needed with CN York Sub too...

That's a pretty cheap one, relative to some of the other rail-rail separations, though isn't it? On the order of $100M?

IIIRC, It was only made tricky because there was another roadway separation and station work that needed to be done too. It was more efficient to bundle them together than have 3 separate projects.

 

[Palma]

For a region to want to go directly to subway vs the way Toronto did it - bus, streetcar, then subway. Today it seems bus, articulated bus, LRT (not underground) and subway.

 

[Canadian Chocho]

Streetcars predate buses.

 

[Palma]

Streetcars predate buses.

sorry, thats right. But today the bus comes before anything

 

[Rainforest]

With regards to Line 1, it seems apparent the extensions on either end (TYSSE and YNSE) aren't enough for York Region. They want more (and really, what city wouldn't?). Vaughan is considering plans for an extension up to Wonderland, and York Region is mulling extending up Yonge to Major Mack. I'd argue that instead of such polarized extremes as upgrading BRT plans to a 6-car deep bore heavy rail subway (i.e the least expensive transit vs the hands-down most expensive transit), we could look for something in between. And something more fitting with the suburban built form and their massive roadway allowances. Similar to the Crosstown, or S(L)RT. Some parts underground, some trenched, some elevated, some in-median perhaps.

The LRT solution might be very handy for the Yonge corridor north of Richmond Hill centre. Indeed, it can run in-median through most of Richmond Hill, underground through some otherwise choked areas (Aurora?), and maybe switch to side of the road in areas where the density is still low and there is room for such arrangement.

The only concern is that LRT has to be reasonably long, and thus the project will be relatively expensive and has to be funded as a whole rather than in phases. It does not make much sense to switch from subway to LRT north of Richmond Hill centre, and then switch from LRT to bus 8 or 10 km further north.

But if such funding can be secured, it will be arguably better than extending the subway to Major Mac. While the LRT option will preserve the direct connection between the York Region's two most important transit corridors - Yonge and HWy 7 / 407; the subway extension would force riders transferring between them to transfer twice.

Regarding Jane / route to Wonderland, either subway or LRT seems to be an overkill at this point. YRT has plans to run another VIVA route up Jane; it may be upgraded to BRT in the near future, and BRT will be sufficient for a long time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Radial streetcars used to run all the way up to Lake Simcoe.

They were replaced "temporarily" with buses.

 

[Rainforest]

^ Well, we can't replace the buses with streetcars of that kind; they would be too slow in today's traffic, and not have enough capacity for today's demand.

We would want a much faster, modern LRT, and probably a complementary local bus service to reach minor stops where the LRT does not stop.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Radial streetcars used to run all the way up to Lake Simcoe.

They were replaced "temporarily" with buses.

Neat. When are they planning to restore the streetcar service?

 

[44 North]

The LRT solution might be very handy for the Yonge corridor north of Richmond Hill centre. Indeed, it can run in-median through most of Richmond Hill, underground through some otherwise choked areas (Aurora?), and maybe switch to side of the road in areas where the density is still low and there is room for such arrangement.

The only concern is that LRT has to be reasonably long, and thus the project will be relatively expensive and has to be funded as a whole rather than in phases. It does not make much sense to switch from subway to LRT north of Richmond Hill centre, and then switch from LRT to bus 8 or 10 km further north.

But if such funding can be secured, it will be arguably better than extending the subway to Major Mac. While the LRT option will preserve the direct connection between the York Region's two most important transit corridors - Yonge and HWy 7 / 407; the subway extension would force riders transferring between them to transfer twice.

Regarding Jane / route to Wonderland, either subway or LRT seems to be an overkill at this point. YRT has plans to run another VIVA route up Jane; it may be upgraded to BRT in the near future, and BRT will be sufficient for a long time.

I’m definitely not advocating for the purposeful dis-incentivizing of transit usage. On the contrary. One of the key purposes of an upgrade to light rail on the Yonge corridor IMO would be to promote arterial development and intensification along the corridor with the offering of greater land value increases and upzoning that comes with railed rapid transit (increases that BRT could never offer). I’m not saying RHC/LG will end up like other planned “Centres”. But as past evidence has shown, development sometimes strays beyond the Centre’s border and follows along arterials.

And when compared to subway north of RHC (and arguably south of there too), the benefits to local transit users can be considered greater in that it would offer more stations and probably higher frequencies than subway. Specific to Langstaff Gateway and the readily apparent issues with regards to access across the site (*the majority of which lies well beyond walking distance to a subway*), I think some form of light rail could be really optimal if worked into the plans. And at the end of the day, IMO at least, buses kinda suck. Not many will leave their car behind to ride a bus (me oftentimes being one of them). So I don’t blame YR for wanting to reconsider plans for Yonge north of RHC by 2041.

Re: the issue of transfer-transfer-transfer...this is naturally an issue, but not exactly a disincentive if we look at the big picture, and factor in commuter-friendly options (i.e GO). Ignoring the Yonge North BCA (which obviously omitted some important info), we can get a clearer picture when reading the 2011 TTC forecasting report. Subway modeling numbers show that by 2031, AM peak hour has 13,300 headed s/bound from RHC station - with approx 40% of those having arrived/transferred at RHC by s/bound bus. Of this 13,300, something like 10,200 (approx 80%) are going downtown. That’s a long way to ride on a subway, particularly one with inherent capacity issues and notorious shutdowns.

But there are a few things to keep in mind here.

1. With regards to commuter options, GO2020 data was used in the TTC’s modeling. With this there was to be no fare integration in place. And specific to the parallel RH corridor, there were to be no corridor upgrades to increase its speed. So what’s presented for 2031 is the current base case, but with higher peak frequencies (15-30min).​

2. This GO2020 assumption used for 2031 projections contradicts the RTP/Big Move assumption that fare integration will be in place by 2031. Not to mention that it excludes the 29min RHC-Union express option laid out in the 2010 GO Improvements BCA, the “Express Rail” option included in the RTP/Big Move, and on a basic level it also contradicts the general assumption that improvements to the corridor are to be an ongoing program. And from casual glancing at the RH corridor over the last year or two, it seems to me that incremental upgrades/construction are being undertaken as we speak. ​

3. Although it’s assumed there’s to be no fare integration between TTC/GO, afaik the subway modeling data includes the elimination of cross-border fares (which I guess keeps with the assumptions in the Big Move/RTP that integration between local operators will be in place, and current fares will remain as-is). Not sure, but I guess that would mean a single token can get you from RHC to anywhere on the TTC? ​

4. This modeling never included electrified Stouffville or Barrie RER. These are new concepts, are near-mid term priorities, and were not included in the Big Move. Obviously these are different catchments than the Yonge corridor, but the inclusion of these would most definitely affect modeling numbers. Particularly with a 407 Transitway or other cross-region RT service in place.​

5. Distance-based fares? Metrolinx is pushing this, and this could definitely alter projections for many projects – whether local, subway, regional, or RER. ​

6. As the recent debates and studies have shown with SSE, DRL, RER, SmrtTrack(?), and the 2008 Big Move modeling - it’s that there’s a latent demand for commuter rail use (so long as it has integrated fares and high frequencies). All of these were excluded from Yonge North modeling. ​

Long and short, yes there would be some that would face a transfer-transfer-transfer if there were to be a light rail system along Yonge (either north from Finch, north from Steeles, or north from RHC). But if we factor in all the data and facts and recent news, seemingly the majority of transit users would be unaffected – since many riders in and around the corridor and RHC/LG would be riding med/long distances, and thus would gravitate toward more realistic (and faster) modes.

Since a light rail option was never explored south of RHC (with plans being upgraded from bus to subway), I guess it’s considered “fantasy” to talk about it. But what I’m imagining here wouldn’t so much be tram-style “LRT” with low speeds and capacity. Rather something similar to the Crosstown (by being part grade-separated and part tram-style). Or something like the SRT/SLRT/Skytrain in that it’s fully grade-separated and which could (theoretically and if designed right) provide peak capacity similar to a subway.

 

[minilude]

@44 North, care to post some links for the new plan north of HWY7 other than buses? I don't see anything recently, only a VIVA green plan to be restructured to a U shape along leslie-major mackenzie-jane. BRT construction on Yonge north of hwy7 has already started and estimated completion by 2019. I doubt they will plan a major capital project only for a lifespan of (2041-2019)=22 years?

 

[BMO]

@44 North, care to post some links for the new plan north of HWY7 other than buses? I don't see anything recently, only a VIVA green plan to be restructured to a U shape along leslie-major mackenzie-jane. BRT construction on Yonge north of hwy7 has already started and estimated completion by 2019. I doubt they will plan a major capital project only for a lifespan of (2041-2019)=22 years?

He's talking about something mentioned in a draft York Region TMP for the furthest horizon year possible. I don't know why he keeps mentioning it since I've rarely seen a long-range horizon year's plan remain the same by the time the next TMP comes out in 5 years.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

He's talking about something mentioned in a draft York Region TMP for the furthest horizon year possible. I don't know why he keeps mentioning it since I've rarely seen a long-range horizon year's plan remain the same by the time the next TMP comes out in 5 years.

He keeps mentioning it because he thinks it proves an actual point he came up with in his mind.

If I can have the gumption to speak for my honourable friend, I think his logic goes something like,
"By the time I'm a very old man, York Region thinks maybe they will want subways going to up the very northern edge of the furthest possible urban boundary. Ergo, they don't know where subways actually make sense, which is in Toronto. I already think only an LRT or MetroRail makes sense in York Region and this coloured line on a map proves it.
Even if a subway made sense to Highway 7 it obviously doesn't make sense up to there so if they want to go up there, there shouldn't be a subway in the first place. The longer they want to build it, the less sense it makes, see?
It proves that York Region isn't really committed to TOD in VMC and further York Region's entire subway-centric logic is diluted and they should have LRT or MetroRail going up to Major Mac, even though that "plan" I keep citing is an unapproved 30-year TMP and the subway is an approved project with a complete TPAP, cited as a 15-year priority by Metrolinx, York Region, Markham Richmond Hill, YRT/Viva, TTC and the The City of Toronto."

Something like that, anyway.

Anyone who thinks the Keesmaat map that came out last week - listing 15-year Toronto transit priority projects - will materialize precisely as planned, raise your hands! What, no one?
Now, everyone who thinks the 30-year York TMP - still not approved by council, still not incorporated into any official plan or any official document of any kind - has any tangible impact on the future of the Yonge subway extension - can you raise your hands, please? Just 44North??!!

Shocker.

On a lighter note - thanks to everyone who posted pictures of the old radial line. It's a cool, largely unknown bit of local history, how people used to take streetcars up to Lake Wilcox for picnics etc.